Image 01 Image 03

Hillary lawyers to participate in recounts even though no “evidence of manipulation”

Hillary lawyers to participate in recounts even though no “evidence of manipulation”

Hillary lawyer: Following through even though Trump victories in WI, PA and MI “well exceeds the largest margin ever overcome in a recount”

The prof wrote about Green Party candidate Jill Stein filing for a recount in Wisconsin, and the clamoring calls from Hillary supporters for electors to change their votes have not diminished since she lost the presidential election to President-elect Trump.

Team Hillary’s top lawyer, Marc Elias of Perkins Coie LLP, says that the Hillary campaign WILL PARTICIPATE in the recount efforts even though they have found NO EVIDENCE of hacking or other interference with the election process.

Elias writes:

The campaign is grateful to all those who have expended time and effort to investigate various claims of abnormalities and irregularities. While that effort has not, in our view, resulted in evidence of manipulation of results, now that a recount is underway, we believe we have an obligation to the more than 64 million Americans who cast ballots for Hillary Clinton to participate in ongoing proceedings to ensure that an accurate vote count will be reported.

The ongoing proceedings to which he refers include Stein’s Wisconsin recount, and they will legally represent Hillary on the ground.

Elias continues (emphasis added):

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 is also pursuing recounts in Michigan and Pennsylvania though Hillary’s own lawyers think there’s not much point in doing so.

They’re not alone in this assessment; it seems that Stein’s spoiler third-party run still chafes.

Indeed, it appears that the Obama White House is (or its “allies” are) not only against the recount efforts but that Obama himself called Hillary and told her to concede.

She complied, calling “Trump to congratulate him before campaign manager John Podesta had returned from the Jacob Javits Center, where he told her supporters to go home for the night because the final votes were being tallied.”

The Hill reports:

President Barack Obama called Hillary Clinton to persuade her to concede the White House on election night, according to a forthcoming book on Clinton’s defeat.

Authors Amie Parnes, The Hill’s senior White House correspondent, and Jonathan Allen cite three Clintonworld sources familiar with the election-night request in the unreleased book from Crown Publishing.

“You need to concede,” Obama told his former secretary of State as she, her family, and her top aides continued to watch results trickle in from the key Rust Belt states of Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. The latter state, called after 1:30 a.m. by The Associated Press, was the clear tipping point for the White House race, ensuring Trump would crest over the 270 electoral-vote threshold needed to win.

. . . .  Obama allies are dead-set against the multi-state recount effort. Former Obama White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer mocked it on Twitter:



Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


A Clinton lawyer is a busy lawyer.

So much for the mystery of who’s shoveling money at Stein.

What is it they’re hoping to uncover?

I get what Stein’s getting out of this — a much bigger warchest for the Green party, either for 2020 or for the midterms. (If they actually got a congressman elected somewhere, it would be a huge coup.)

But what could the Clintons be thinking that makes this worth spending a few million dollars on?

Bernie got a new house as a payoff. What is Jill’s payoff? Soros has deep pockets to use to underwrite his plans.

Mrs. Scum did not concede the election of her own will: It was Obama who urged her to:

Imagine a scenario when Obama has more class than you? In Clinton’s case, it’s easy.

Who knows – maybe she’ll join Castro in hell sooner than later and we’ll be done with the both of them.

“Team Hillary’s top lawyer, Marc Elias of Perkins Coie LLP, say that the Hillary campaign WILL PARTICIPATE in the recall efforts…”

So, we’re writing in ebonics now…??? That’s what they lawyer say?

The Crooked Hillary team better be careful….
If they piss-off Trump he may call for a special
prosecutor after all. 🙂

Gee….Clinton not honoring her word?
Color me surprised…../sarc

Nobody cares who votes or how they vote. What matters most is who counts the votes.

Resurrections occur no only in the spring, but occasionally in the late fall.

Imagine the roles were reversed. Trump would be excoriated for “failing to accept the will of the people” if he dared to do such a thing. Of course we know that there is one standard for Libs and a different one for their opponents.

The struggle for relevance. Pathetic.

DieJustAsHappy | November 26, 2016 at 2:19 pm


Wisconsin has 10 Electoral Votes. Trump has 306. Lose Wisconsin and his total is still 296. I can’t see the point of pursuing Wisconsin alone. All three – WI, MI, and PA – would be needed to have his total fall below the required 270.

If the objective is to provide some incentive for Electors to do what any recounts most likely will not, go for Hillary rather than Trump, a total of 37 would be needed. The last I knew there were 6 discussing the possibility of switching to Hillary. Unless, there are others who, out of fear, are not making their intentions known, the matter seems like an exercise in futility.

    “The last I knew there were 6 discussing the possibility of switching to Hillary.”

    Are you sure? I remember reports of Hillary electors vowing to vote for someone else — presumably in the hopes of inspiring Trump electors to break ranks. The stories often had cute headlines that implied they were Trump electors, until you read the text of the article. I haven’t seen a single Trump elector talk about switching to Hillary — if you have, I’d love a link.

      DieJustAsHappy in reply to clintack. | November 26, 2016 at 3:32 pm

      Yes, you’e correct. I was confused on this. So, I re-checked.

      There are several, at least, efforts. One is by to collect signatures for petitions to have electorates switch their votes. is going after 160 Republican electorates from 15 states, ones that do not have laws binding electorates. The one involving the six has a two-fold objective.

      One is to undermine Trump’s victory, acknowledging that is probably not possible to get the needed 37 to deny him the election. The other is to undermine the Electoral College. These six are Democrats.

      Thanks for the correction.

    It is. She probably just wants a place in Trump’s cabinet so she can keep the speaking fees and Clinton Foundation donations rolling in while they prime Chelsea to take over (or, who knows, they may deluded enough to think that Hillary has a chance in 2020 . . . she’ll be 73 then, but they may actually believe her viable).

    It may be something like: here’s the deal, make me something super important sounding, and I’ll call off the dogs before they crumble your presidency before it even beginss.

    Trump’s a deal maker, he brags about it and wrote a book about it, so she may just be playing “let’s make a deal.” Peace in the streets, no more recounts, no more bullying of the EC, and hey, as an added bonus, a press who can’t bash too hard an admin in which Hillary fills a high level seat, appointment, etc. lest they ruin her imagined 2020 anointment.

    Seems to me that the pragmatic deal-lmaker in Trump might think it’s worth the risk if it will get the hordes off his back before inauguration and during his “honeymoon” period.

    And let’s face it, he could appoint Hillary anything at all, up to and including AG, and Trump fans would create shiny new pretzel shapes trying to explain it away as evidence of Trump’s genius.

      DieJustAsHappy in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | November 26, 2016 at 7:13 pm

      Well, Hillary settled for less than the brass ring in 2008. All things considered, I doubt she would do so again. So, if the Clintons are jumping into this, supporting financially(?), I think it would be for no less than the Oval Office.

      Moreover, I would wonder about the other members of Trump’s team, how they might react to him letting her anywhere near the administration, except maybe for tea some sunny afternoon.

      Also, talk about antagonizing his base, something he’s already accomplished with Romney and his statement about not pursuing the Clinton scandals. Appoint her to the Trump Team? I think the uproar would be considerable and long-lasting.

      Or, maybe you comment was tongue-in-cheek!

      “And let’s face it, he could appoint Hillary anything at all, up to and including AG, and Trump fans would create shiny new pretzel shapes trying to explain it away as evidence of Trump’s genius.”

      Dear Fuzzy,
      You have lost your mind. In more than one way.

      tom swift in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | November 26, 2016 at 7:18 pm

      The personal destruction of Hillary is not the goal. Keeping her away from the White House, the “levers of power”, and the nuclear football is the goal. Everything else can be filed under “Nice To Have”.

      If Trump can do that … in the face of determined opposition from both major political parties, the Federal bureaucracy, the Obama administration, the press, and the malignant spirits of the Pan-dæmonium … it will be a feat unparalleled in American history.

      In fact, genius.

Show mercy, they said. She’s no longer a threat, they said.

Can you hear me now?

Stop surrendering. We should have taken off and nuked the site from orbit. Just to be sure.

Republicans need to remember Gov. Gregoire of WA who won after several recounts and found ballots in Seattle. They do not have a moral objection to cheating.

    CloseTheFed in reply to Anchovy. | November 26, 2016 at 3:32 pm

    Or Al Franken. He got in there on fraudulent votes. Bill Clinton got foreigners to be naturalized before they were eligible to help him in ’96. They were in California.

    Mercyneal in reply to Anchovy. | November 26, 2016 at 8:43 pm

    But Michigan said it is not doing a recountand it is virtually impossible to do it now in PA. And even if Trump lost Wisconsin he would still be winner Anyone actually bothering to do some positive homework instead of being negative?

God help us if they overturn this election.

    DieJustAsHappy in reply to Old0311. | November 26, 2016 at 3:35 pm

    If it should be overturned, I think the Lord only would be able to help us because we’re in an awful way going it on our own.

    Mercyneal in reply to Old0311. | November 26, 2016 at 8:40 pm

    Um it won’t be. Wisconsin is Trump’s . And Klein can’t even ask for a recout in PA. A recount can only occur if margin is .5 % , trumps margin was over 1 % . Hillary would have to prove to a judge that there was massive fraud in every PA county before a judge would agrre to recount. This would all have to happen by Monday

My earlier prognostication—that this was a “make or break” point for those wishing to “fundamentally transform” the country, primarily by eliminating meaningful elections for good—remains unchanged.

So I was puzzled when they seemed to give up so easily.

Well, they haven’t.

They gave a shot at perverting the electors. But they don’t seem to have heard enough encouraging noises to make them believe that that will work. So they’re trying something else—a selective recount.

There’s no way they can win by just re-counting votes in these three states. So, logically, they must be planning to do something else in these three states. Something they’re pretending is no big deal, unlikely to work, nothing to see here, move along …

So why these three? Because they believe they have enough fifth columnists embedded in the electoral systems of these three to let them pull a fast one. Or three fast ones.

    Anchovy in reply to tom swift. | November 26, 2016 at 5:10 pm

    Because there is so much doubt about this election and the processes, I, President Obama, am declaring the whole election void. We will have another election. An election that the American people feel is fair and they can have confidence in.

    In the meantime, I am going to declare martial law in order to protect our citizens and their property. This declaration of martial law will be brief and only in effect until arrangements can be made for another election. It would only be fair to allow other candidates to compete so I pledge that we will have a new, fair election within the next 4 years.

    Until that time, I will remain in office. There is much unfinished business that the American people want done and I will forego my retirement from office to continue the work of the American people.

    Thank you.

Anyone notice that Castro is dead. Me think the Hillary did it for not bringing in the Florida vote.

    Kepha H in reply to MarkSmith. | November 26, 2016 at 9:52 pm

    My guess is that a Castro endorsement of Shrillary Shrooooooooooooooo would’vvve driven every wavering Cuban-American voter more firmly into the Trump camp.

    Further, I know for a fact that it wasn’t Trump of Clinton who caused the old dictator to die. He tried to overthrow his brother Raul, lost, and fled. While in the middle of the strait, Fidel fell off the boat, and such a great cloud of dead fish and crabs floated to the surface that he suffocated.

I bet if we follow the money, Soros and Hillary are behind this all.

    I think it was on Reddit the Donald, someone said they found a bot that donating enormous sums of money and they traced it to a soros organization. Something like $160k per hour. Will she have to give a report to the FEC about donors for this recall effort?

    So hilldawg wants to “threaten our democracy”. Those were her words about President Trump when President Trump didn’t say he’d concede the election when he was asked that question in the debate.

    Paul Joseph Watson has that video and one of jill saying “under hilldawg clinton we could slide into nuclear war very quicky”.

    Liberals, they all brain damaged. Keep the illegals, deport the liberals, it’d be more merciful all around.

Dr. Stein should have been a proctologist.

Let’s hope Michigan doesn’t let the same team of Clinton lawyers that counted which emails were hers and which ours into the counting room.

keep your magazines topped off and your arms well maintained. you will need them soon.

    tom swift in reply to RMS1911. | November 26, 2016 at 6:52 pm

    But nobody’s actually ready for anything drastic. When all is said and done, a lot more gets said than done.

    When Governor Gage sent troops under cover of darkness to arrest Samuel Adams and John Hancock and then to confiscate the gunpowder and cannon known to be at Concord, spies notified riders who left Boston to alert Adams, Hancock, and militia commanders. Alarms—church bells—were rung all night throughout the New England colonies. As soon as they heard the bells, militiamen as far west as central Massachusetts began moving to their assigned posts. The riders from Boston noticed armed men walking across the fields, evading British patrols on the roads.

    And all this by candlelight.

    When Lt Colonel Smith’s Regulars finally arrived, they found the militia, in formation, waiting for them.

    In short … they were ready.

    We are not.

    Or at least if somebody is, they haven’t told me about it.

The Clintons are in this for two reasons. The first is to be on hand if the opportunity to “game the system” presents itself. It may be possible to either “find” uncounted ballots or to “disqualify” enough non-Clinton ballots to make a difference. The second reason is to try to reduce the number of challenges to Clinton ballots, including those of dubious validity.

In 2000, Florida ballots were recounted until they were dogeared. There were six recounts, in all, including the official ones and those conducted by various news organs. We were treated to a lawsuit over “butterfly ballots” and claims of hanging chads which indicated that the voter did not intend to vote for G.W.Bush; even though there was no vote for Al Gore on the ballot. Then we were treated to claims that overvotes should count; usually for Al Gore. But, when the recounts used anything other than the most lenient standard possible, the count produced the same outcome. GW won the election in Florida. These recounts will produce the same results. The Trump organization is going to keep a very close eye on the process to make sure that it is done properly. There will be tons of negative Trump news stories and probably at least one lawsuit filed on behalf of Clinton or Stein. And, in the end, Trump will still be the winner.

Clinton won New Hampshire by only 0.4%, This was a slightly greater margin that what Trump won by in Michigan and far smaller margin of victory than by what trump won in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. This begs the question of why is there no recount being demanded in New Hampshire if the goal of the other recounts is to ensure that the vote tally is accurate?

I’d suggest Trump’s show up as well….and keep an eye on Hillary’s.

Once again, there will be no Pennsylvania recount, as the margin of difference between votes for Trump and Clinton has to be close; the law there mandates a “ceiling” of 0.5%. If the margin of difference is greater than 0.5% it is presumed that a recount would not change the outcome. Under these circumstances a party, in this case the Greenies, would have to go to court and show at a minimum a prima facie case that fraud or irregularities exist that could cause the margin to meet that legal limit. Unfortunately for Stein and the Greens, no such evidence exists! No computer hacking, no vote tampering, no anything at all … zip nada.

Therefore, no Pennsylvania recount and also therefore no change in the outcome of the election.

Now, if you want something to be concerned about you can always worry about the fact that electors bound to Trump have been “asked” to ignore their sworn duty and vote for Hillary instead. Since most of these people are old enough to remember Vince Foster and the rest of the inhabitants of the Clinton Cemetery, this could very well be a valid reason to keep rubbing your worry stones!

Getting a recount in Pennsylvania apparently is really hard. Candidates can’t actually ask for a recount, rather the official staff/poll watchers have to ask for it due to some administrative problems that occurred during the election.

Anyway, the have to have it done by today, Monday 28-Nov to get it started.

There’s trickery afoot!

JoeThePimpernel | November 28, 2016 at 4:57 pm

Cankle’s lawyers are their to inject a little “manipulation,” not detect it.