RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Zapotosky writes: "Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign has been quietly exploring whether there was any “outside interference” in the election results and will participate in the election recount in Wisconsin initiated by Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein, a Clinton campaign lawyer revealed Saturday.”

Hillary Clinton. (photo: AP)
Hillary Clinton. (photo: AP)


Clinton to Join Stein's Demand for Recount

By Matt Zapotosky, The Washington Post

26 November 16

 

illary Clinton’s presidential campaign has been quietly exploring whether there was any “outside interference” in the election results and will participate in the election recount in Wisconsin initiated by Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein, a Clinton campaign lawyer revealed Saturday.

In a Medium post, Clinton campaign lawyer Marc Elias said that the campaign had received “hundreds of messages, emails, and calls urging us to do something, anything, to investigate claims that the election results were hacked and altered in a way to disadvantage Secretary Clinton,” especially in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, where the “combined margin of victory for Donald Trump was merely 107,000 votes.”

Elias said the campaign had “not uncovered any actionable evidence of hacking or outside attempts to alter the voting technology.” But because of the margin of victory — and because of the degree of apparent foreign interference during the campaign — Elias said that Clinton officials had “quietly taken a number of steps in the last two weeks to rule in or out any possibility of outside interference in the vote tally in these critical battleground states.” He said that they would also participate in the Stein-initiated recount in Wisconsin, and if Stein made good on efforts to prompt similar processes in Pennsylvania and Michigan, they would do so there, as well.

“The campaign is grateful to all those who have expended time and effort to investigate various claims of abnormalities and irregularities,” Elias said. “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 presidential campaign was marked by fears that Russian hacking might affect the outcome, especially after Russian hackers penetrated the computer network of the Democratic National Committee and were found to have attempted intrusions on voter registration databases. The Washington Post also recently reported, citing researchers who tracked the phenomenon, that Russians created and spread fake news about the election with the apparent goal of helping Donald Trump.

During the campaign, Clinton criticized Trump for refusing to say that he would accept the election results if she won. Asked during an October debate whether he would do so, Trump responded that he would “keep you in suspense.” Clinton called that answer “horrifying” and said Trump was “talking down our democracy.”

“Donald Trump refused to say that he’d respect the results of this election,” her campaign later posted on Twitter. “By doing that, he’s threatening our democracy.”

In recent days, though, it is Clinton’s supporters who have raised questions about the outcome of the election. A viral post spread by some Clinton backers, including actress Debra Messing, suggested — falsely — that the Justice Department was “tallying calls” from people who wanted an audit of the 2016 election and urged people to make their displeasure known.

“Even if it’s busy, keep calling,” one version said. “We should not back down from this.”

New York Magazine then reported that Clinton was being urged “by a group of prominent computer scientists and election lawyers” to call for a recount in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, and the group had some evidence of possibly unusual activity. That fueled even more skepticism and calls for action by Clinton supporters.

The evidence of possible malfeasance, though, was limited. According to New York magazine, the group found that Clinton “received 7 percent fewer votes in counties that relied on electronic-voting machines compared with counties that used optical scanners and paper ballots,” and that based on that “statistical analysis, Clinton may have been denied as many as 30,000 votes; she lost Wisconsin by 27,000.”

J. Alex Halderman, one of the academics reportedly involved, later wrote on Medium that the deviations were “probably not” the result of a cyberattack but that “the only way to know whether a cyberattack changed the result is to closely examine the available physical evidence  —  paper ballots and voting equipment in critical states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.”

Posting a link to a New York Times story about Clinton supporters calling for a recount, senior Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway said, “Look who ‘can’t accept the election results.’”

Elias’s post might fuel similar criticism. Notably, though, Clinton did not initiate the recount herself, and Elias said that the campaign had not planned to, because it had found no actionable evidence of hacking.

The Clinton campaign had investigated the matter extensively. Elias said the campaign had “lawyers and data scientists and analysts combing over the results to spot anomalies” and had also “monitored and staffed the post-election canvasses  — where voting machine tapes are compared to poll-books, provisional ballots are resolved, and all of the math is double checked from election night.” He said the campaign had also met with outside experts and “attempted to systematically catalogue and investigate every theory that has been presented to us within our ability to do so.”

Now that a recount effort was underway, Elias said that it was “important” to participate in the proceedings. He played down the idea that the recount would change the outcome.

“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,” Elias said. “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.”

Brian Fallon, a spokesman for the Clinton campaign, rejected the notion that the campaign’s actions might suggest to some that it was not accepting the election results.

“The post says we would not have sought the recount on our own, that we see no evidence of tampering so far, and acknowledge the margin in Michigan, which is the tightest of the three, exceeds the largest deficit ever overcome in a recount,” Fallon wrote to The Washington Post. “We note we are guarding our prerogatives now that someone else has launched a recount. Not sure what you could point to to suggest there is anything here that calls the results into question.”

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

We are going to return to our original fully-moderated format in the comments section.

The abusive complaints in the comment sections are just too far out of control at this point and have become a significant burden on our staff. As a result, our moderators will review all comments prior to publication. Comments will no longer go live immediately. Please be patient and check back.

To improve your chances of seeing your comment published, avoid confrontational or antagonistic methods of communication. Really that is the problem we are confronting.

We encourage all views. We discourage ad hominem disparagement.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+90 # Caliban 2016-11-26 14:28
Good move by Stein to start the process and by Clinton to get behind it.

Even if the figures don't change the outcome, a little skepticism and double checking of the numbers can only be a good thing in a close call situation.
 
 
+41 # grandlakeguy 2016-11-26 14:58
The above article commences with:
"Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign has been quietly exploring whether there was any outside interference in the election results..."

ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

She needs to look in the mirror at the criminal fraud that Clinton herself and her co-conspirators at the DNC inflicted on
our nation by committing a wide range of disenfranchisem ent techniques and outright election theft in the primaries!

No one but the voters has the right to decide who shall be the nominee.
That right was stolen from the American voters this year.

Even if the electoral college overturns the election results delivered by the usual Republican election theft Hillary Clinton will never be a legitimate President since she was never the legitimate nominee!

Ask yourself...how many senate and House election contests were also stolen by the Republicans?
 
 
-1 # jdd 2016-11-26 18:17
Lord, when will the Russian-baiting stop? This is part of the reason that the Wall Street warmonger is not the president-elect . Oh yes Jill, I was so looking forward to a confrontation of nuclear superpowers over Hillary's regime change Syria policy.
 
 
+3 # Reductio Ad Absurdum 2016-11-26 19:13
We'll stop Russia baiting when Putin stops poisoning his opponents, hacking our computers and making bad situations like Syria worse.

Who said "more countries should have more nukes?" Who said, If we're not willing to use nukes, why do we have them?" Who said we should just "take their oil?" Who said he would tear up treaties and defensive alliances? Which candidate sounded most like the imperialists you profess to loathe? It wasn't the candidate Sanders voted for.

You Hillary haters helped get Nuke-'em Trump, the crown prince of childish impulse elected with your pretzel logic, so don't give me your BS about how bad Hillary would have been — we're seeing how bad Trump is already — so OWN THAT, it's part yours.
 
 
+5 # Jaax88 2016-11-26 20:02
I would add, who in Russia threatened to use nukes in the recent past?
 
 
-2 # Inspired Citizen 2016-11-27 05:12
Trump is bad; Hillary would have been worse in crucial ways. The TPP, for example, is dead. That would not have been the case if #CorporateClint on had won the election.

Detente with Russia is much better than Clinton's planned hot and/or renewed cold war and nuclear arms race with Russia.

Trump's presidency won't be a picnic, but at least we won't be living under the constant terror of an exchange of nuclear weapons.
 
 
+3 # ericlipps 2016-11-27 10:05
We'll be living under constant terror of President Trump throwing a temper tantrum over some perceived suggestion that he might not be the best there is at everything and launching the missiles out of childish anger.
 
 
+3 # Depressionborn 2016-11-27 21:42
really?
 
 
0 # Jaax88 2016-11-27 16:01
I do not get the chicken little fear showing by some. In all likelihood the nuke war claim is a troll's meme (or show me real proof she has advocated that.) America and USSR lived with nuke war threat for some 50 years. What in the world do you overly fearful people really think or are you just politically posturing or letting the losing side disappointment rule rational thinking.
 
 
+1 # AshamedAmerican 2016-11-27 21:48
Obama's warmongering policy in Syria has drawn Russia into a hot war there to protect its primary ally in the region. The coup d'etat that we sponsored in Ukraine has also provoked Russia into intervening militarily. This came after the lies we told to end the Cold War, namely that we would not encroach on their former territories. We have been increasingly surrounding them with weapons aiming at them from their borders. Clinton has blamed Russia for the chaos and mayhem in Syria, which could hardly have been further from the truth. She has openly sought regime change in Syria, and promised a no-fly zone which which could be expected to precede such an attempt. Our government's belligerence has increased the possibility of nuclear war in the past. But we are taking our threats to Russia's doorstep as never before. And Clinton was even more bellicose.
 
 
+25 # Johnny 2016-11-26 19:51
As Reducto and others prove, Americans love war, which explains that they always are eager to believe the most absurd bullshit propaganda the government vomits to vilify the leader of one foreign nation or another as an excuse for bombing and slaughtering hundreds of thousands. Easy to get the idiot masses in a frenzy for war against "Putin," but the war itself might not be so easy. U.S. warmongers could be in for a surprise if they attack a country that can fight back.
 
 
+6 # mashiguo 2016-11-26 20:37
Quoting Johnny:
As Reducto and others prove, Americans love war, which explains that they always are eager to believe the most absurd bullshit propaganda the government vomits to vilify the leader of one foreign nation or another as an excuse for bombing and slaughtering hundreds of thousands. Easy to get the idiot masses in a frenzy for war against "Putin," but the war itself might not be so easy. U.S. warmongers could be in for a surprise if they attack a country that can fight back.


speaking of which....
https://newint.org/features/2016/12/01/the-coming-war-on-china/
 
 
+1 # Reductio Ad Absurdum 2016-11-26 23:06
Johnny can't read. My statements in no way implied that anyone loved war, but it strongly asserted that Trump's pro-nuke comments and his adolescent impulses made him the greater threat to peace, yet you accuse anyone who doesn't share your blinding hate of Hillary of being duped by propaganda. That's rich.
 
 
+6 # AshamedAmerican 2016-11-26 23:26
Nonsense. Clinton's record demonstrates that she has supported every war the US has been involved in for decades. She was planning regime change in Syria, and by this and other means was antagonizing Russia. She has also done her part in provoking China. Trump has done nothing that begins to compare with the warmongering of Clinton or Obama.
 
 
+5 # Reductio Ad Absurdum 2016-11-27 10:50
Nonsense?

You Hillary haters need to nix the assumed superiority you've been pooping all over this comments board. If your Hillary hate left you even an ounce of objectivity, you would realize that Trump's chilling statements about his willingness to use nukes makes your greater fear of Clinton laughable.
 
 
+3 # librarian1984 2016-11-27 13:29
Third debate.
 
 
+2 # AshamedAmerican 2016-11-27 22:04
We could discuss Trump's chilling statements and we could discuss Clinton's. But if we discuss their records, Clinton had already played major parts in wrecking entire countries based on lies. Again, Trump's record simply does not begin to compare. Does your alleged objectivity take into account Clinton's blood-stained hands or the mountains of dead innocent victims in her and Obama's wake?
 
 
+1 # ericlipps 2016-11-27 10:02
Ask yourself: How much longer will GLG keep ranting about how Hillary Clinton wasn't really the legitimate choice of the voters?

To the end of his days, I suspect, and never mind that Bernie Sanders himself has denied that the nomination was stolen.

But oh, yes, I forgot, Hillary Clinton was standing right behind him holding a gun to his head while armed thugs loyal to her were holding his family hostage. Sheesh.
 
 
+7 # DaveEwoldt 2016-11-27 11:06
The thing is, Eric, that whether or not Bernie is willing to claim the nomination was stolen doesn't change the reality of whether it was or not. The evidence seems to strongly suggest that it was. The question is whether there is anything there that can provide proof.

What the nominating process did show this year, though, is that the process itself is in dire need of repair toward inclusion, equity, transparency, and validation.
 
 
0 # DongiC 2016-11-27 14:22
I think he has some unmet basic need to denigrate H. Clinton which prevents him from realizing he has become obsessively boring.
 
 
+2 # Patriot 2016-11-27 15:15
eric, your sniping doesn't seem to be abating, either...have you noticed? Also Sander has never, to the best of my knowledge, DENIED the theft of the primaries. If you've heard or read that, in his own words, kindly advise where.
 
 
+2 # Ken Halt 2016-11-27 18:12
Bernie has said his campaign took on "... the entire Democratic establishment and the most powerful political organization in the country, which is the Clinton organization, (and) we did pretty well." In that statement is, I think, recognition that there was plenty of activity behind the scenes that was meant to hamper his chances.
 
 
+4 # ljslotnick 2016-11-27 14:48
thank you grandlake for keeping that issue at the forefront. What I see as the only possible bright spot with these recounts if if the reality of non-democratic elections in this country becomes discussed in something greater than sound bites.
We have all witnessed elections which have suffered from voter disenfranchisem ent, voter purges, voting place reductions, electronic vote flipping...it goes on and on. Somehow this is not an important issue to the main stream media, nor to the RNC nor DNC.
Ranked choice voting is going to be the law in Maine, and now we should work to make it the law of the Land. We need to unlock the monopoly of the RNC and DNC.
 
 
+2 # grandlakeguy 2016-11-29 19:14
The Wisconsin board of elections has declared that they will only permit an electronic recount…

THIS IS AN ADMISSION OF GUILT!

Clearly they know that an examination of the paper trail will yield a different result.
They must be terrified of the truth coming out and it will be thrilling to finally seen the curtain of deception removed from American Election Theater!
 
 
+22 # futhark 2016-11-26 19:36
One good possible outcome of this is that the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party will have a political debt to pay the Green Party, especially if the result of the investigation is the ouster of Mr. Trump. I'm hoping the Green Party is formulating such a list as the process of investigation advances.
 
 
+11 # Saberoff 2016-11-26 20:35
The Clinton wing of the Democratic can't even pay attention. It would be better if they all just faded into the proverbial dustbin.
 
 
+10 # Ted 2016-11-26 20:56
Sounds to me like the clinton is actually trying to sabotage the "re"count effort.

All their"experts" seem to be going out of their way to claim there's no basis for it...
 
 
+81 # librarian1984 2016-11-26 15:26
Just watched Jill Stein on CNN. She is saying her motivation is to help restore confidence in the American voting system.

She says the GP is not coordinating with the Clinton campaign, but that the GP has sent lawyers to the DP to make sure they don't 'get in each other's way'. She said she has been saying all along that she was interested in verifying this election, no matter who the winner was, because of the hacking, and cited the GP's working for a recount in 2004 OH.

She said that the election was full of hacking -- hacking of the DP database, of the Podesta emails, and during the DP primaries. She said she was disappointed Senator Sanders hadn't questioned the accuracy of the vote in the primaries.

Faced with so much questionable activity, we need a way to verify the accuracy of our elections, and that is what the GP is trying to accomplish.
 
 
+47 # grandlakeguy 2016-11-26 18:21
I absolutely applaud Jill Stein for what she is doing!
As long as the MSM mocks the fact that our election system is a sham and labels those who are trying to expose that truth as "conspiracy theorists" we will never regain the freedom to actually elect representatives of our choice.

Nothing would please me more at this point than for Wikileaks to release a totally damning trove of emails about the Democrats theft of the primaries.

Perhaps then Bernie might step forward and tell what he knows...there is enough anger and disgust in what has happened that perhaps there could be a national outcry against this rape of democracy!

Imagine if the electoral college electors refused to confirm either Clinton or Trump once the truth is exposed!
 
 
+17 # hipocampelo 2016-11-26 22:07
grandlakeguy: That would be my preferred solution, as neither of these two bozos is
even close to being qualified for POTUS.
Lets find an honest and intelligent politician to bring this country from the brink.
 
 
+12 # Saberoff 2016-11-26 19:08
Right. And no matter the results of the audits, Hillary can say "I never knew that!"

Now, where did I put my face???
 
 
-6 # Johnny 2016-11-26 19:44
Wonder how the Green Party suddenly came up with the funds to pay for a recount, when they couldn't raise money for their own campaign.
 
 
+6 # Anonymot 2016-11-26 20:03
CIA. They are furious that they lost the election for Deep State and sure they can get a better fix on the recount.

Interestingly enough, Elias, the Clinton Campaign counsel said their exploration had “not uncovered any actionable evidence of hacking or outside attempts to alter the voting technology.” If their exploration turned up no evidence of outside interference that puts the lie to Clinton who pulled off the Russians did it false news.
 
 
+1 # No Go 2016-11-27 15:58
Quoting Anonymot:


Interestingly enough, Elias, the Clinton Campaign counsel said their exploration had “not uncovered any actionable evidence of hacking or outside attempts to alter the voting technology.” If their exploration turned up no evidence of outside interference that puts the lie to Clinton who pulled off the Russians did it false news.


I think that Elias was saying that he did not have evidence of hacking into voting machines and vote counts. The Clinton campaign definitely cited the NSA claims that there is abundant evidence that the Russians hacked the DNC and conspired with Assange to try to bring down Clinton in the campaign.
 
 
+5 # lfeuille 2016-11-27 16:22
Really, this blame the Russians meme has all the markings of a disinformation campaign. Various elements of this campaign have already been debunked and I'm sure the hacking of election machines will soon follow. Assange had good reason to hate Hillary and try to bring her down, but there is no evidence that he got assistance from the Russians and the hacking involved was pretty standard stuff. There is no need for a sophisticated state player. The campaign was just so stupid and arrogant they did not even take any basic steps to protect their data from teenage pranksters.
 
 
+12 # Pikewich 2016-11-26 23:07
Donations...... you can take part if you like

https://jillstein.nationbuilder.com/recount
 
 
+4 # lfeuille 2016-11-27 16:16
From individual small donors, just like Bernie did it. There are enough people upset about the way our elections are conducted to raise the estimated 7 million fairly easily. It isn't just Greens donating. It's also Democrats and Independents. And it really isn't for the Green Party or Jill Stein. It's for fair elections. She is the only one whole could have done it when Hillary declined (once Stein showed that it could be done, Hillary jumped back in). As a candidate, she had standing.
 
 
-3 # Depressionborn 2016-11-27 21:45
Hillary conceded; Stine needs some money.
 
 
+41 # solartopia.org 2016-11-26 18:31
the key to this and many previous elections is the massive disenfranchisem ent of black/hispanic/ asian-american/ muslim voters prior to the balloting.

it's great they're getting into the specifics of the election process, but not great they're avoiding this huge piece of the election theft reality.
 
 
+1 # Jaax88 2016-11-26 20:27
Then those groups should organize and raise the hue and cry.
 
 
+53 # janie1893 2016-11-26 18:38
The fact that over $4 million was contributed in less than 24 hours says there are a vast number of citizens who want a recount done immediately.
 
 
-17 # Johnny 2016-11-26 19:46
Wonder why the Green Party couldn't fund a decent campaign for Jill Stein, but suddenly has over $4 million.
 
 
+14 # Pikewich 2016-11-26 23:09
That is easy to answer.

How many times have you read or heard that a vote for the Green Party is a vote for Trump?

Or Bush, or Romney?
 
 
-6 # ericlipps 2016-11-27 09:57
And it was true, every single time.
 
 
+1 # Patriot 2016-11-27 15:30
Eric, you seem to have a sort of mental deficiency--you cannot get through your head that a vote for one candidate is a vote for that candidate only.

YOU may be brainwashed into devotion to a two-party system, but the rest of us realize that 1) there's barely any difference any more between the Repubs and the Dems, 2) the two-party system is nothing but a tug-of-war for absolute and permanent control of the country, 3) the two-party system leads to nothing but gridlock, and 4) the result is election fraud, as each half of the duopoly seeks to control which party will win each state and national office.

When there were, consistently, a large enough number of congressmen and governors and state legislators who were neither Repubs nor dems, government addressed the interests of the people through negotiation and compromise, and the parties at least ATTEMPTED to offer candidates who could walk and chew gum at the same time, and were not undergoing criminal investigation-- because they had to compete with all those 3rd-party candidates for the public's attention and its votes.

The duopoly MUST end if we ever are to regain any control of our government--so you should try to absorb the FACT a vote for any given candidate is a vote for THAT candidate, only.

Do give it a try, won't you?
 
 
+9 # Helga Fellay 2016-11-26 21:04
either a vast number of citizens, or one very wealthy citizen, or one very wealthy foundation.
 
 
+4 # Patriot 2016-11-27 15:31
A vast number of citizens, myself among them!
 
 
+9 # lorenbliss 2016-11-26 21:10
...Real gen-u-wine spooks, spooks, spooks
Real clan-des-tine spooks, spooks, spooks
They's no use puttin up yo dukes
You jus caint fight them genuine spooks...

(1950s "nonsense" song)
 
 
+9 # Saberoff 2016-11-26 19:03
Wisconsin? This Clinton development wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that, due to paper ballots and open primaries, the DNC COULDN'T fix the primary in Wisconsin (leaving no chance for spillover from prying eyes)?

Hmmm
 
 
+53 # JCM 2016-11-26 19:09
Hacking is small potatoes compared to the hundreds of thousands of purged votes due to the republican Interstate Crosschecking System. Why isn't there more about this on MSM, on this article, where is the rage? The election was stolen and hardly anyone is talking about it. Over four hundred thousand people were on the purge list in Michigan, if only ten percent were purged that would have given it to trump. Don't just recount, reclaim all of the purged votes. Be very angry!
 
 
+4 # DaveEwoldt 2016-11-27 11:11
JCM, yeah. This is the part that will be studiously ignored in the process.
 
 
+1 # JCM 2016-11-27 16:22
You got to check this out. From Joy Reed
http://www.msnbc.com/am-joy/watch/wisconsin-election-recount-spurs-rumors-of-hacking-818131523561
And hardly anyone else talks about it. What the heck. Be very Angry!
 
 
+1 # lfeuille 2016-11-27 16:32
It's not being studiously ignore. There is no way for a recount to address it. You can't recount votes that were never cast. It will take an entirely different process. I think you have to go through the courts and I doubt that Stein would have standing there.
 
 
+3 # JCM 2016-11-27 17:53
The Interstate Crosschecking system purges votes by removing them from registration. When the voter tries to vote they are given a provisional ballot. I would hope that during a recount those provisional ballots would be addressed. Just guessing.
If you watch the Joy Reed show above (Greg Palast starts at about 4 minutes in) you will hear that in many cases absentee ballots are not counted either. How do they get away with this? Be very Angry!
 
 
+6 # Henry 2016-11-26 19:31
In other words, in all this as usual Democrats take the weak and wimpy stance. Pitiful. Examples —

Elias said that it was “important” to participate in the proceedings. He played down the idea that the recount would change the outcome.

J. Alex Halderman, one of the academics reportedly involved, later wrote on Medium that the deviations were “probably not” the result of a cyberattack

and others ...
 
 
+8 # mashiguo 2016-11-26 19:34
And of course the obvious fact that Hillary is not a leader, but a follower.
 
 
+2 # Pikewich 2016-11-26 23:12
Very interesting and deep observation. Thank you.
 
 
+19 # Jadhu 2016-11-26 20:09
Republicans: Proudly stealing elections since 2000!
 
 
+10 # lfeuille 2016-11-26 20:19
This isn't really good news. Clinton isn't needed to get the necessary funds. It looks like she is just using this as another opportunity to slander the Russians to deflect attention from her god awful campaign.

It's somewhat amusing that she cites reports of Russian hacking as a major reason for participating. According to an article in the New York Observer I read yesterday, it is the Clinton campaign that has been planting these stories about Russian hacking and fake news in the MSM to deflect blame for the loss and to avoid the very necessary reassessment of the parties allegiance to neoliberalism.

There was another story debunking the Russia in Alternate today:

http://www.alternet.org/media/washington-post-promotes-shadowy-website-accuses-200-publications-russian-propagandaplants?akid=14923.1084699.d1iThr&rd=1&src=newsletter1067854&t=2
 
 
+6 # Pikewich 2016-11-26 23:15
This may sound a bit cynical, but if blaming the Russians results in making our voting system secure and accurate then...

Blame the Russians by all means!
 
 
+3 # lfeuille 2016-11-27 00:29
Blaming the Russians adds nothing. It does not help at all. It's just distraction.
 
 
+1 # Robbee 2016-11-27 12:46
Quoting lfeuille:
Blaming the Russians adds nothing. It does not help at all. It's just distraction.

- yes and no

all possible ways to flip the election result need to be examined

even if it's just repugs who hack - or machines show tampering - or are susceptible to hack - recounts can help lead to paper trails in voting - to greater assurance of a true count

i'd be particularly interested in knowing - in these states run by repug machines - whether provisional ballots for rump counted and for hill didn't? - what happened when cross-check unregistered a voter from voting? - did they even get a provisional ballot? in any way did unregistered attempted voters get counted?

from what fitrakis and reich say, some aclu types will be suing over illegal voter suppression?
 
 
+9 # Anonymot 2016-11-26 20:19
You might want to read the original which has been a bit edited here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/11/26/clinton-campaign-will-participate-in-wisconsin-recount-with-an-eye-on-outside-interference-lawyer-says/?utm_term=.95f8cd70e8ec
 
 
+11 # Jadhu 2016-11-26 20:25
The founding fathers called. They want the Constitution back from te Republican fascists. Since you won't be using it anytime soon, can we have it back?
 
 
+3 # RNLDaWy 2016-11-26 20:39
With a supposition of doubt ... based on a long shot that the Russians somehow entered the voting counting via hacking .. too pie the sky .. right with the Holiday tradition .. and more based upon 'Sour Grapes' thus far .. we'll see but I doubt it very much ...
 
 
-7 # ericlipps 2016-11-27 09:50
But if there wee any "sour grapes," it appears they were Jill Stein's.

She's just upset she couldn't raise enough money to qualify for federal matching funds, and is making a long-shot bet that a recount might change that. Hillary, of course, has her own reasons.
 
 
+3 # lorenbliss 2016-11-26 21:19
Obviously the (cockroach?) people who intend to exterminate our species and destroy our planet aren't giving up.

Yes, Trump is terrible -- but he is the best thing that ever happened to the possibility the U.S. will rise to the Nazi occasion, overthrow capitalism and replace it with socialism.

Which is probably the exact reason our overlords are now saying "fuck it; let's give it back to Hillary and let her end life as we know it: better dead than Red."

(And then there's Hillary's hand-in-glove collaboration with Sam Brownback and all the other JesuNazis who believe the Apocalypse is the only sure route to Heaven.)

Trump means the near certainty of revolution. Hillary means the absolute certainty of extinction. Which side are you on?
 
 
+6 # Pikewich 2016-11-26 23:25
I don't like either of them.

Check Please!

Beam me up Scotty, there is no intelligent life here.
 
 
-2 # Jaax88 2016-11-27 00:41
I do not like either, but prefer Hillary. However I find your comments to be of a nitwit.

An unfamiliar word has popped up. Krakistocracy.
The government of the worst possible people.
We are getting it with trump.
 
 
-2 # ericlipps 2016-11-27 09:55
Actually, it's "kakistocracy"- -but I take your point. I feel the same way.
 
 
-3 # ericlipps 2016-11-27 09:52
Bullshit.

"Hillary means the certainty of extinction"? Out of which bong do you GET this stuff?
 
 
+1 # candida 2016-11-29 03:09
Quoting lorenbliss:
Yes, Trump is terrible -- but he is the best thing that ever happened to the possibility the U.S. will rise to the Nazi occasion, overthrow capitalism and replace it with socialism.

Which side are you on?


I'm on the side of sanity and reason, which is why I gave you a thumbs down and would give you ten more if I could. Your thinking is really unhinged!
 
 
-8 # RNLDaWy 2016-11-26 21:52
The 'Cucaraches' imma-graches voted against her as they know what socialistic dictatorships are like coming from down there in Mehico .. as well using your line of thought the Russians would have helped us go 'Commie' then .. and would not have interfered eh? I'm amazed how easily Nazism gets bandied around and used so vociferously when the pain is so deep ...
 
 
-1 # candida 2016-11-29 03:04
I'm amazed by your bandying about of racist imagery! If you want others to be sensitive to your pain, be sensitive to that of others.
 
 
+4 # janie1893 2016-11-27 01:24
God got tired of blessing the USA!
 
 
+9 # Villon 2016-11-27 01:46
One of the best investigative journalists working today, Greg Palast, covered the story of the stolen election on the night this crime occurred. A system called "Crosscheck" was used to purge the voting roles of an extraordinary amount of voters. This is where the focus of any investigation should be. Clinton, no matter what you think of her, won the popular vote by over 2 million votes, and they're still counting. If even a small percentage of these illegally purged voters were permitted to vote and counted, Donald Trump would not be creating the fascist takeover of our government. We saw what happened the when the last presidential elections were stolen, in 2000 and 2004. The country is still recovering from the George W. Bush crime spree. If Trump is allowed to take office, and this should not happen, it will take a full generation for this country to recover. This election was stolen, and outrage should be the response. For more, go to gregpalast.com and support his investigation.
 
 
-6 # lorenbliss 2016-11-27 02:09
@Villon: you are absolutely correct about the "fascist takeover."

But if the recount succeeds, instead of Trump "creating the fascist takeover" it will be Hillary doing the same thing, albeit with two important differences.

She will -- precisely as she has promised her fanatical devotees in the forcible disarmament cult -- void the Second Amendment by using executive orders to totally disarm the civilian population of this nation, thereby condemning us to compulsory pacifism and mandatory victimhood, most likely at the hands of the Ku Klux Klan and other fascist and/or Nazi militias who as outlaws will not allow themselves to be forcibly disarmed; she will also -- precisely as she has promised her deep-state masters -- start World War III by attacking Russia in Syria, no doubt in the belief the global aristocracy in their bunkers can survive the decades-long nuclear winter that will follow the war and "cleanse" the entire 99 Percent (save for the few of us the aristos keep as slaves) from this planet.

Given her JesuNazi affiliations, she might even see herself as a latter-day Noah, saving the "good people" -- the plutocrats -- while exterminating the "bad people" -- all the rest of us, whom her Prosperity Gospel says are cursed by her god in retaliation for our sins.

Thus, as I have said so many times, the real difference between Hillary and Trump: Trump is survivable. Hillary is not.

Again: which side are you on? Possible survival or certain extinction?
 
 
+1 # Jaax88 2016-11-29 16:28
I am on Hillary's side. I can believe your really believe and write this nitwit stuff.
 
 
+3 # AshamedAmerican 2016-11-27 02:36
No, villon. The country is NOT "recovering from the George W. Bush crime spree". The crime spree never stopped. It just became the Obama crime spree.

And Clinton would not likely have "won the popular vote", if it were not for the many crimes that benefited her during the primaries.
 
 
-3 # lorenbliss 2016-11-27 03:12
Another point: with Trump in the White House we had a good chance of building a NONVIOLENT revolution -- witness what obtains at Standing Rock. And -- just as Gandhi's revolution did -- this revolution might have engendered enough international support to succeed.

But with Hillary in the White House there will undoubtedly be a Rightist uprising and thus civil war -- the very antithesis of nonviolence -- which will unquestionably destroy the United States
just as the Clintons' civil wars have destroyed Yugoslavia and Libya. And that very destruction will give Hillary yet another nothing-to-lose motive for starting World War III.
 
 
+3 # davidh7426 2016-11-27 10:29
So much for 'respect the results of this election'...

Or should that have been 'respect the results of this election, BUT ONLY WHEN WE WIN!!'.

Seriously people, this comic dance that the 2016 US election has become, has turned America into a circus of the macabre and a laughing stock for the amusement of the rest of the world. And a country that prides itself on being the worlds most exceptional nation, is quickly becoming the worlds most exceptional joke.

And you have only yourselves to blame!!!

So please enough of the 'Lets blame other countries for what we did to ourselves' game, no-one outside of America really cares any more.
-----

You may now feel free to vote me down... I no longer care.
 
 
-2 # lorenbliss 2016-11-27 17:07
Not surprisingly, I see the Hillarykorps has again mustered its tantrum of trolls*, all spewing invective so hateful it throttles any hope of rational discussion.

Indeed the taint of the trolls' truculence seems to have intensified from its pre-election trashiness, a tangible transition from tiresome twaddle to genuinely toxic taunts.

Let us hope this resurrected tempest of turpitude does not prove terminal to RSN.

_________
*As in a "gaggle of geese," a "murder of crows," etc.
 
 
-2 # lorenbliss 2016-11-27 17:49
Let us ask ourselves what might be the hidden agenda of the recount.

Our overlords have already forever discredited USian elections. We were forced to choose between two Hitlers: Donald Hitler of the Renewed Holocaust versus Hillary Hitler of the Thermonuclear Apocalypse.

Ultimately our choice was thus between (possibly survivable) horror or (certain) extinction.

Our decisions revealed to the One Percent's psychological warfare experts the magnitude of our national courage.

The courageous -- those who dared vote against Hillary -- voted to fight on.

The cowards -- those who voted for Hillary -- chose suicide.

But why the recount?

Is the One Percent still indecisive about which Hitler will serve it best as Führer?

Or is something else afoot – say provocation of a Rightist uprising, with civil war its inevitable result.

After all, that would kill forever the potentially successful nonviolent revolution brewing at Standing Rock.

And the resultant “state of emergency” would enable the One Percenters and their Ruling Class vassals to terminate -- also forever -- any rational hope of restoring USian liberty.

Plus, as I have said before, a civil war's destruction -- remember Berlin in 1945 -- would give the Hillary Führer the perfect “nothing-to-los e” rationale for starting World War III.

Think, people. We are tyrannized by our species' most diabolical plotters ever.

What then is the true purpose of this recount?
 
 
0 # Shaas 2016-11-28 05:45
Typical Dollary: First she concedes the election, after that she wants suddenly recount.
She just can't speak straight and truthfully.
 
 
0 # candida 2016-11-29 03:01
So, if a person changes their mind, they are a liar? Moreover, there are perfectly good and rational reasons she would want to change her mind. This does not make her a liar.
 
 
+1 # Jaax88 2016-11-29 16:33
Get your facts straight. Hillary did not suddenly want a recount. As I understand it she passed on it until Stein wanted it and started it.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN