Tongue-Tied Green Party Official Stumbles to Explain Wisconsin Recount
“Let’s find the truth.”
If this is the best that the Hillary/Stein camp can muster to justify a recount, Donald Trump can rest very easy tonight . . . On Tucker Carlson’s new Fox News show this evening, guest host Ed Henry interviewed Ian Jackson of the Massachusetts Green-Rainbow Party regarding a possible recount of the presidential vote in Wisconsin.
Green Party candidate Jill Stein campaign has in recent days raised millions of dollars to fund such an effort. The responses from Jackson—who seemed a nice guy in over his head—were a string of painful pauses and hesitations, concluding with an admission that the Stein campaign would have to consider refunding money to donors.
Readers are urged to view the video to see just how utterly tongue-tied was poor Mr. Jackson.
IAN JACKSON: People have been slightly concerned about the trail and as your last guest pointed out it’s very decentralized.
ED HENRY: Uh-huh. When you say “slightly concerned,” that doesn’t sound to me like there’s widespread allegations or more importantly evidence of some sort of fraud. So is this giving Jill Stein supporters some sort of false hope?
JACKSON: Well, I [pause] there’s we’re [pause] trying to find what the count is and [pause] I’m not sure it’s false hope. It’s trying to find the truth behind the numbers. There has been these allegations by computer scientists but as your last guest pointed out, it was using different systems and using that, being engineers, um, I’m a software engineer and we like our little [pause] models, but unless you actually count and check it, you don’t know whether it’s just a thought well, they used something different or if there’s something to it. And you mentioned your show is all about finding truth.
HENRY: Let’s find that truth. My next question is, our last guest, who you cited several times, Craig Gilbert, also said, accurately, that in 2000 and 2004 the margin was even closer in the presidential race and there was no recount. So what’s your case tonight?
JACKSON: [pause] Well, the case [pause] tonight, you can see that there that was [pause] a real contentious election [pause], and, based on that there are people that have expressed concerns. So, it’s best to find the truth and go through the process. And obviously people have been willing to put up millions of dollars [pause] to find out and count the ballots again.
HENRY: Okay, so final question: if you really want to get at the truth can we get at another truth which is that it appears that Jill Stein has raised about $5 million for a recount that may or may not happen for fraud that may or may not have happened. If there’s nothing found here and if there’s not even a recount will you pledge tonight that you and others in the Green Party believe that that money should be refunded, so this is not just money being raised on false hope?
JACKSON: Well, we’re [pause] ex-exploring that I’m only treasurer for the Green-Rainbow party. We’re certainly going — if it doesn’t get used, we’re certainly going to discuss with our donors what their desire is for that money.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Is anyone else wondering how the Stein campaign only raised about $3.5 million in a year or two for the actual race, but then manged to raise twice that in only 30 days for the recount?
Yes…I find the developments fascinating. A more responsible press might try to track down the origin of those donations.
A more suspicious person than I might think about $oro$.
Exactly. Soros’ goal is to throw a monkey wrench into the machinery of the Electoral College.
Its safe to say that many of the donors for the recount have no interest whatsoever in Stein. A very shrewd fundraising ploy on her part.
That’s what I don’t get, Stien didn’t have a snowball’s chance in a supernova of winning. Shouldn’t you at least have a chance of winning before you can call for a recount?
My guess is that the money came from rhe Clinton camp. Remember that Clinton criticized Trump for not committing to support the initial election result in their final debate. This means that Clinton needed someone else to challenge the result. She won’t give up easily but I think it is a futile effort. Boy, she must have been especially insufferable the past two weeks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeFoGo3N_4g
From: Wisconsin Board of Elections
To: Jill Stein
Our recount has confirmed that you never had a snowball’s chance in hell of winning the presidency.
We have canvassed both of the people that voted for you and found that they were legally registered to vote, though we don’t know how they managed to operate the voting machine as high as they were.
Thanks and have a nice day.
P.S. Please find the bill for you frivolous recount attached.
Wouldn’t it be hysterical if this recount occurred and there was massive voter fraud found where thousands to tens of thousands of dead people, illegal immigrants, and others, were found to have voted for Hillary?
“Let’s find the truth.”
And print up some more votes for Clinton.
Hey you guys, I’m demanding a recount of Virginia. If you’ll just send donations to my paypal account please.
$500k gets a recount operation mobilized on the ground.
another $500k is need to start a recount convetion.
and if we reach our kick start goal of $2 mil, you will get this genuine home made coffee cup signed by yours truly.
Act Now! First 50 donors get Founder status and a 10% off coupon at Red Lobster!
Florida here I come! And Bermuda!
Ian Jackson should be beyond embarrassed for his appearance on Tucker Carlson program.
This is nothing but a complete waste of time.
Not sure why there is such controversy about a recount. Double-checking the results is more than reasonable. Indeed, even if the original count is largely upheld, a recount may still reveal weaknesses in the process.
Yes, the purpose of the recount is to test our election system and make it stronger. The commie greens are doing our capitalist republic a service! Are you really this naive?
What’s the big deal? According to Hillary Clinton when candidates refuse to accept the results of an election that is a threat to our Democracy. At least that’s when she said when the polls showed her ahead of Trump.
I love the “I’m just asking an innocent question” act, liberal. The big deal is that these recounts are a huge pain in the ass for the people who will have to conduct them. They actually have other items in their job descriptions other than coddling liberals who only like voting as long as the voters arrive at the “correct” result.
These results have already been double-checked and triple-checked by county officials, state canvassers, and a government board before the Secretary of State certifies the election results. If they discover any irregularities these officials will not certify the election results until they conduct a thorough investigation.
Your mask has slipped, liberal. You’re simply demonstrating your hypocritical, authoritarian nature. The voters didn’t get it right as far you and your ilk are concerned so you want a do-over until you get to the right result. It’s fitting one if the states where the fascists are demanding recounts is Wisconsin where the libs were so upset that Scott Walker was elected and did what he said he was going to do they tried to sue in state court to overturn the results, they staged recall elections, and when all that failed an angry liberal county prosecutor conducted lawless Jane Doe investigations into Walker’s supporters for the crime of participating-in-the-political-process-while-not-Democrat. Complete with early morning SWAT raids on their homes.
Leftists are not nice people and their hearts are not in the right place; they would love to criminalize their political opponents. That’s why they loved Castro and Hugo Chavez so much. Those guys did what deep in their hearts the American left wants to do.
Since I just found this profoundly ignorant statement I feel I must comment here. Recounts are not a “double check” since results are already double checked through the canvassing and certification process, which is why those processes are in place.
A recount is an intervention that is used when there is a credible belief that something wrong with the results such a fraud and/or tampering. Or is used when a result is below a fairly narrow margin of error to verify the results. These are the only 2 reasons a recount should be used.
Gremlin1974: A recount is an intervention that is used when there is a credible belief that something wrong with the results such a fraud and/or tampering.
That is incorrect. Many jurisdictions require a recount whenever the vote is close, and most recount procedures do not require evidence of fraud or tampering.
Which is the very next thing I said. However, other than that narrow margin it is exactly an intervention for something being wrong.
Next time try reading my entire statement before responding.
Gremlin1974: Or is used when a result is below a fairly narrow margin of error to verify the results. These are the only 2 reasons a recount should be used.
Recounts when there is a narrow margin IS a double-check of the results, contrary to your first statement. Each state has their own procedures. In Wisconsin, Stein has the right to call for a recount.
Wrong. Recounts are actually a triple check as I have already explained that all results are double checked before being certified.
A recount for narrow margin is meant to be used by those that were actually within that margin not some wanna be also ran and any reasonable court would stop Steins recount efforts because it should be obvious that she has no credible reason to ask for a recount other than she is being paid to by the Clintons.
Oh and before you embarrass yourself saying that there is no proof that it is the Clintons funding her, anyone who has an IQ above room temperature and isn’t willfully ignorant has probably noticed that she has raised more for recount efforts than she did for her entire campaign.
Gremlin1974: Wrong.
Gremlin1974: A recount for narrow margin is meant to be used by those that were actually within that margin.
Apparently, Wisconsin disagrees. The rules are different in Michigan and Pennsylvania, though.
Gremlin1974: she has raised more for recount efforts than she did for her entire campaign.
Sure. That probably implies donations from Clinton supporters, but not necessarily from Clinton.
@Zachriel
Humm, what is going to be really funny is if she misses the deadline to pay for the recount, even though she has twice the money she needs.
Also, filing a suit because they refuse to do a hand recount is proof she is just trying to delay so those votes won’t be counted in the EC. Which will probably only last until Trump files his first challenge.
“Sure. That probably implies donations from Clinton supporters, but not necessarily from Clinton.”
This is nothing more that willful ignorance because I refuse to believe that you are this naive.
Gremlin1974: Humm, what is going to be really funny is if she misses the deadline to pay for the recount, even though she has twice the money she needs.
Jill Stein pays fee to green-light Wisconsin recount
Gremlin1974: filing a suit because they refuse to do a hand recount is proof she is just trying to delay so those votes won’t be counted in the EC.
No. It’s consistent with suspected problems with machine counting.
Gremlin1974: This is nothing more that willful ignorance
Not a substantive response. You have no evidence to support your contention, but just choose to believe it anyway.
truthiness, the quality of seeming or being felt to be true, even if not necessarily true.
@Zachriel
“No. It’s consistent with suspected problems with machine counting.”
Well apparently the courts disagree with you.
“Not a substantive response. You have no evidence to support your contention, but just choose to believe it anyway.”
The evidence is in your responses above.
You refuse to acknowledge that the probability of Stein raising the amount of money that she has from “clinton voters”, as you have said, is naive at best.
You continue to defend a recount that is obviously a partisan attempt to sabotage votes in the EC at worst and/or a blazen attempt to pad election coffers of an “also ran”.
You also continue to defend the supposed “reason” for the recount which is nothing more than a statistical conspiracy theory proposed by 3 partisan computer scientist, one of which has already as much as admitted that the theory is flawed. Not to mention the gaping holes in the theory, like the fact that it is all but impossible to hack voting machines in PA. due to the machines age and the fact that they aren’t networked through the web, i.e. unless you think Russia send enough spies to PA to actually stand there and do the hacking.
Then there is also the simple fact that is it ridiculous that an “also ran” who had no chance of winning should be able to call for a recount that has no chance of changing the outcome for them.
Oh and the whole “ensuring the integrity of our electoral process” bullshit, if you actually believe that well then I have some ocean front property in AZ and a couple of bridges that I like to discuss selling you.
Thankfully, this woman who is making a mockery of our electoral process is so inept that she has missed her opportunity to continue her silliness in PA and MI.
Gremlin1974: Well apparently the courts disagree with you.
Problems with machine counting is not our position. It’s a poorly supported belief by Stein.
Gremlin1974: You refuse to acknowledge that the probability of Stein raising the amount of money that she has from “clinton voters”, as you have said, is naive at best.
“Clinton supporters” is the accurate quote. The amount of money raised is not that much for crowd sourcing.
@Zachriel
“The amount of money raised is not that much for crowd sourcing.”
You would be correct if we were talking about a popular video game and given 3 months to a year. For a political campaign, and I am being very generous even calling it that, for an unpopular also ran to double the funds raised for their entire campaign for what is basically a publicity stunt in about a week or so? No way, the only way that the amount of money that was raised in the amount of time is if she received financial support from a “major donor” I would bet that in the next couple of months we will find that it was an donation from the Clinton Foundation and/or a major Clinton supporter. If it is from the foundation well that would be illegal.
Frankly I am interested to see what the FEC says about the whole deal.
Gremlin1974: For a political campaign, and I am being very generous even calling it that, for an unpopular also ran to double the funds raised for their entire campaign for what is basically a publicity stunt in about a week or so?
But it’s not money for an also ran, but an issue that has currency on the political left.
Gremlin1974: No way, the only way that the amount of money that was raised in the amount of time is if she received financial support from a “major donor”
That is incorrect. Donations are limited to $2700, and the average contribution is $46.
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2016/11/stein-recount-brings-in-twice-as-much-as-campaign/
But if it feels true …
@Zachriel
“But it’s not money for an also ran, but an issue that has currency on the political left.”
Yes it does have “currency” on the left, what it doesn’t have is any sense of legitimacy. It’s to “insure the integrity of elections”; that’s a load of crap and you know it. It has to be a load of crap because even Stein says there is no evidence of fraud. Well if there is no evidence of fraud then why do you need to “insure the integrity”? Especially, if the challenge is coming from an also ran with no reason to even be interested. What this is about is the left not being able, as usual, to accept defeat and deal with the fact that they lost based on their policies.
“That is incorrect. Donations are limited to $2700, and the average contribution is $46.
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2016/11/stein-recount-brings-in-twice-as-much-as-campaign/
But if it feels true …”
Yea, all of that information comes directly from the Stein campaign, which by the way the article clearly states, and the actual information needed to make an assessment won’t be available until Dec. 8. Which means the “information” has as much integrity as the Stein campaign, so none.
Also, while opensecrets.org is also one of the better websites for political financial analysis, you do have to take their conclusions with a grain of salt and really look at the data yourself, since it is run and staffed by people who were hired from alt-left websites like Mother Jones.
However in this instance they have no actual data just what Stein’s campaign manager says. So no I don’t go on feeling I actually go on data. But whatever, much like a slut on prom night if you keep swallowing they will keep shooting it at ya.
Gremlin1974: Well if there is no evidence of fraud then why do you need to “insure the integrity”?
Because there are other sources of error besides fraud. Meanwhile, Michigan is going ahead with their recount — per the rules established before the election.
Green Party candidate sues to speed up Michigan recount
http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/03/green-party-stein-lawsuit-recount/94877254/
Gremlin1974: Yea, all of that information comes directly from the Stein campaign
That, and the law governing recounts.
Gremlin1974: the actual information needed to make an assessment won’t be available until Dec. 8
Are you claiming that when Stein reports on December 8, the data will not show thousands of individual donors? Here’s how you donate:
https://jillstein.nationbuilder.com/recount
Notably, we provided evidence, while you repeated “Is not! Is not!”
Zachriel, the problem is that the left is known for voter and election fraud. I wouldn’t take money against the idea that votes won’t be ‘found’ in trunk of someone’s car. They also have a history of demanding recounts until they get the results they want. They tried that tactic in Florida until the SCOTUS put a stop to it but it was successful in getting Frankin elected to the senate.
rabidfox: I wouldn’t take money against the idea that votes won’t be ‘found’ in trunk of someone’s car.
If one can’t reliably count the votes, then it’s not a democracy. Recounts are an important check on the system, and are a legal part of the process.
rabidfox: They tried that tactic in Florida until the SCOTUS put a stop to it but it was successful in getting Frankin elected to the senate.
Finding votes wasn’t the issue in Florida, but determining the intent of the voter, and the differing standards used around the state.
Zach, you may be too young to remember this, but rabidfox is referring to the rumor that circulated quite widely when comedian (I use the term loosely) Al Franken was handed his Senate seat after an election official suddenly found a bunch of ballots in her car. He had lost the election, got a recount, and suddenly won. This “ballots in the trunk” meme developed from there and is widely believed to this day and has never been proven (or disproved); thus, Franken kept his seat. The phrase has come to mean any election fraud. Btw, Franken later won his seat outright.
Your point about public trust and elections is a good one, but public trust is not based on what we need to preserve our republic. Saying we have to have free and fair elections isn’t an argument; it’s a plea. Public trust is not based on pleas any more than it is on wishful thinking.
What also undermines the health of our republic, incidentally, is the Dems’ inability to accept defeat gracefully and move forward with anything resembling dignity or statesmanship. They are spoiled little children throwing mindless tantrums, flailing at windmills, and generally making asses of themselves. Most of America loathes the spectacle.
Rabidfox’s second point you “rebut” was about the recount being pushed to give Gore an election he lost. The “intent” of the voter was not the question except in the case of the infamous hanging chads (and not all counties had the punch hole voting system, either; we voted with a marker back then and with a pen now), and that, too, was a Democrat invention based in a framework they established and centering on specific ballots in specific counties. The “differing standards” you note does not so much refer to county election rules (though that was part of it). It mostly means that the Gore team wanted votes counted only in heavily (D) counties (i.e. mostly South Florida); additionally, the primary focus of the recount in these counties was on those ballots cast that had the presidential section left blank. In other words, they were trying to “find” Gore votes by looking at ballots with no vote for president in heavily (D) counties and “determining” that the voter/s would have voted for Gore if they had voted (supposed “intent”). The Dems claimed, too, that the GOP had hidden Gore votes in a closet or something, so that may have been why the Franken trunks full of ballots meme came from (I don’t know this, just musing). And as an aside, Bush still would have won, even if the court hadn’t weighed in.
In short, you really really need to stop getting your information from Wikipedia.
Fuzzy Slippers: Al Franken was handed his Senate seat after an election official suddenly found a bunch of ballots in her car.
The story was false.
Fuzzy Slippers: the Dems’ inability to accept defeat gracefully and move forward with anything resembling dignity or statesmanship.
Recounts are part of the process. If you can’t have a reliable system, then the U.S. has a serious problem with its democracy.
“The story was false.”
True, but since then 177 people have been convicted of voter fraud for being felons who knowingly voted when they knew that they shouldn’t, all of which were votes for Franklin, btw.
Also, There are something like 66 more awaiting trial last time I checked. According to watchdog groups who are keeping track of this process the numbers aren’t greater simply because to get a conviciton for voter fraud in Minnesota the accused must be ineligible and “Knowingly” voted unlawfully. So many of those investigated got off because they “wised up” (i.e. were informed by their democrat handlers) and started playing dumb.
“Recounts are part of the process. If you can’t have a reliable system, then the U.S. has a serious problem with its democracy.”
While I agree in spirit, frivolous recounts requested by someone who received less than 1% of the vote and didn’t have a snowball’s chance in a supernova and who is so obviously is receiving funding from the defeated candidate make a mockery of our democratic system. As do those who would blindly support them.
This is a reply to @Zachriel above.
Gremlin1974: 177 people have been convicted of voter fraud for being felons who knowingly voted when they knew that they shouldn’t
That number comes from Fund and von Spakovsky. Local newspapers have verified only a small fraction of that number from court records.
Gremlin1974: While I agree in spirit, frivolous recounts requested by someone who received less than 1% of the vote and didn’t have a snowball’s chance in a supernova and who is so obviously is receiving funding from the defeated candidate make a mockery of our democratic system.
Recounts shouldn’t be so traumatic. Checking the results should be straight-forward. There’s not even a paper trail in many areas.
Zachriel, you glossed over this:
“While I agree in spirit, frivolous recounts requested by someone who received less than 1% of the vote and didn’t have a snowball’s chance in a supernova and who is so obviously is receiving funding from the defeated candidate make a mockery of our democratic system….”
And you ignored this final point:
“As do those who would blindly support them.“
Miles: While I agree in spirit, frivolous recounts requested …
Some places require recounts on close votes. It shouldn’t be a national trauma to have a recount. If the U.S. system is so fragile as to not withstand scrutiny, then there is a serious problem with its democracy.
It is not a “national trauma” to say that a frivolous recount is frivolous.
Gremlin1974: It is not a “national trauma” to say that a frivolous recount is frivolous.
Good. No harm no foul.
“That number comes from Fund and von Spakovsky. Local newspapers have verified only a small fraction of that number from court records.”
Very well, I sited verifiable and credible sources, where are your sources because “local newspapers” isn’t a source its an evasion. Which “local newspapers”? How did they investigate?
Also, pointing out that the numbers are from “Fund and Spakovsky” is an attempt to imply a lack of credibility which you also didn’t bother to substantiate.
“Recounts shouldn’t be so traumatic. Checking the results should be straight-forward. There’s not even a paper trail in many areas.”
You could not be more wrong. Recounts should be so infrequent as to be traumatic. They also should have a solid and verifiable reason for proceeding. They should not be a fundraising scam as is the case here and they should be based on something much more substantial than, I will be kind and call it a, “theory” that something might have happened….maybe….but probably wouldn’t affect the results. Even the people behind this fantasy of a theory admit that it is probably bogus. At the very least a recount should only be able to be called by someone who actually got a significant % of the vote not some nobody “also ran” who’s only chance of seeing the Oval Office is on a White House tour.
Gremlin1974: I sited verifiable and credible sources
John Fund And Hans Von Spakovsky are partisans. Their numbers are disputed.
Oh yea, well since the liberal media source says that is not true, without offering any actual proof mind you, then it must be so! sorry but documented research trumps media hype.
Gremlin1974: Oh yea, well since the liberal media source says that is not true
They explained why the “Minnesota Majority” claim was unfounded. Their data included “it used names of voters with no proof of convictions, felons who registered but did not vote and some who had their voting rights restored.” Those are significant problems.
“They explained”
No they made unsubstantiated claims and offered no real proof.
Gremlin1974: they made unsubstantiated claims and offered no real proof.
The evidence is found in reporting on public records. And they pointed to specific problems with the claims by “Minnesota Majority”. Their data included “names of voters with no proof of convictions, felons who registered but did not vote and some who had their voting rights restored.”
Gremlin: where are your sources because “local newspapers” isn’t a source its an evasion. Which “local newspapers”? How did they investigate?
Gremlin: well since the liberal media source says that is not true, without offering any actual proof mind you, then it must be so!
You asked. You were provided an answer. So you wave your hands.