Wisconsin Recount

[TLK Valentine]

Four years ago, when Hillary went for a recount in Wisconsin, she was entitled to a recount of the entire state--70+ counties--for about the same amount.

Source?

 

[Albion]

Hillary Clinton never went for a recount in WI.

You may not know this, but the resources, legal assistance, and etc. for recounting Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, and came from that source.

The "front" was Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, but it was the Hillary campaign and the DNC which needed the recounts and made them possible in those states which, if you recall, had put Trump over the top. There was nothing special about those states so far as the Green Party was concerned.

 

[Mayzoo]

By having two Republican observers at one table instead of a Democrat and a Republican? By having Trump supporters try to be registered as independent instead of Republican?

By trying to throw out a ballot that is folded when that is fine?

Sorry, it sounds like a lot of people that don't know what they are doing trying to throw out every ballot ham-handedly. They are there to observe and record, not to go over every ballot with a magnifying glass.

After the process they could report things they found, not slow down the whole thing by questioning everything.

They do know what they are doing and they are doing so willfully. They are violating policies and standards as a means of disrupting the process.

Not wearing masks properly.
Constant interruptions
two republicans at one table
becoming physically violent

They know exactly what they are doing, and I am sure they were coached quite well on how to be as disruptive and disrespectful as possible.

 

[Arcangl86]

You may not know this, but all the resources for recounting Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, and came from that source. The "front" was Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, but it was the Hillary campaign and the DNC which needed the recounts and made them possible in those states which, if you recall, made Trump the winner. There was nothing special about them to the Green Party.

Do you have any evidence to support your claim that Hillary was secretly behind it?

 

[Albion]

There's no secret about it.

 

[Sparagmos]

You don't know that. Neither do the observers if they are not allowed to observe and speak up, for which privilege the State of Wisconsin extorted three million dollars from the Trump campaign and then tried to keep the process from functioning anyway.

And as for wording, how would you prefer us to describe security envelopes?

The observers are right there. Observing. No one is preventing that. And now you’re calling the normal practice of the person demanding a recount paying fir it extortion? Frankly, if I was interested in an event as much as you are about this recount, I’d be doing a lot more research. You don’t even seem curious as to what is actually happening and what the history, law, and practices are in Wisconsin. You appear to be making things up.

 

[Mayzoo]

Nobody except his own ego. A better man would accept his loss by now.

But instead of one day of Donald losing, we get over two weeks of it... Hanukkah has come early this year.



The point that's bugging me is how do we know he's paying for the recount... the man still has access to the US treasury, and a DOJ that's basically his doormat, who's stopping him from raiding the world's largest piggy bank?

US citizens are paying for it one way or another. He did not draft a check from his personal bank account for this. He is still begging his supporters to pay for a campaign that should have ended almost 20 days ago.

 

[Hans Blaster]

US citizens are paying for it one way or another. He did not draft a check from his personal bank account for this. He is still begging his supporters to pay for a campaign that should have ended almost 20 days ago.

I tend to categorize them as Trump's marks, but they do have to be citizens or risk Federal felony charges for illegal campaign contributions.

 

[hedrick]

From what I've read, it is the Republican/Trump observers of the recount that are slowing things down.

And why should two counties with financial stresses of their own be required to expend $3 million because some whinny candidate who lost by more than 0.25% wants a futile recount just because he wants it?

It may not be futile. If you do a recount only in Democratic areas, and find ways to throw out enough votes, it could change the results. Whatever you think of the Wisconsin process for curing ballots, the rules need to be the same for the whole state. In Florida, the "hanging chad" problem was real. A recount really would have recovered valid votes. But doing it only in areas favoring one party was ruled unconstitutional, for good reason. If the election commission's process for curing ballots is not legal, then ballots for the whole state need to be reassessed. Changing the rules in a way that would reduce the number of acceptable ballots only in Democratic areas is clearly unconstitutional. Even if the change itself is right.

 

[TLK Valentine]

US citizens are paying for it one way or another. He did not draft a check from his personal bank account for this. He is still begging his supporters to pay for a campaign that should have ended almost 20 days ago.

If he's fleecing people who donated to his campaign, that's one thing -- I have little sympathy for people who really should've figured out they're being fleeced.

But raiding the treasury means we're all paying for it.

 

[mark46]

the vote should be certified and then there should be a recount, if requested per WI statute (same as GA, and I presume PA).

For me, the counting "issue" is that states couldn't start processing votes until Election Day. FL has a very reasonable process.

 

[Albion]

US citizens are paying for it one way or another. He did not draft a check from his personal bank account for this.

Tell us how you know this to be so.

It's no wonder people get upset with such cheap shots. President Trump gave his salary back to the Treasury while Biden was making private deals, as Vice President, with foreign governments, that produced millions of dollars in payoffs for his own family members.

But lo and behold, we are supposed to think that it's TRUMP who is certainly going to stick the taxpayers with the cost of a recount, which maneuver isn't even possible.

 

[TLK Valentine]

the vote should be certified and then there should be a recount, if requested per WI statute (same as GA, and I presume PA).

Shouldn't the recount happen before the certification?

 

[Hans Blaster]

the vote should be certified and then there should be a recount, if requested per WI statute (same as GA, and I presume PA).

For me, the counting "issue" is that states couldn't start processing votes until Election Day. FL has a very reasonable process.

Apparently in Wisconsin the order is: Vote, count, canvass, (recount), certify

Apparently in Georgia the order is: Vote, count, canvass, audit, certify, (recount).

Georgia used the audit to hand check the presidential vote. It looks like the exact position of a potential recount in the final sequence is state dependent.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Tell us how you know this to be so.

Because he's half a billion in debt, considers bankruptcy a shrewd business tactic, has been blackballed by every bank in North America, has a long history of using the courts to avoid paying bills, and consequently, no sane person in America would accept a personal check from him?

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

Apparently in Wisconsin the order is: Vote, count, canvass, (recount), certify

Apparently in Georgia the order is: Vote, count, canvass, audit, certify, (recount).

Georgia used the audit to hand check the presidential vote. It looks like the exact position of a potential recount in the final sequence is state dependent.

This makes no sense. Why would you declare results official and then check to see if the vote totals are correct?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Tell us how you know this to be so.

Because the recount was paid for by the campaign and Donald J. Trump contributed the exact same amount to his campaign that I did in 2020: $0. (per FEC reports)

 

[MIDutch]

It sounds more like the people who had their hands in the cookie jar on election night are complaining because the observers have done some observing now that they cannot be prevented from seeing the ballots!

And your evidence for "people who had their hands in the cookie jar" is what, exactly?

Oh, wait. I know. Rudy is going to dazzle us all with the massive amount of evidence he's found ... two weeks from now. And he'll reveal it down the street from the adult books store.

 

[Hans Blaster]

This makes no sense. Why would you declare results official and then check to see if the vote totals are correct?

It does seem a bit odd. My guess is that the certification makes the result official, so then it can be challenged. (In other states the official canvass seems to provide that role.)

 

[mark46]

Shouldn't the recount happen before the certification?

That's not the way the law works. Those who administer the vote certify the vote as their process counted vote. Of course, a court, or their process could address fraud.

A recount has NOTHING to do with fraud. A recount is a part of the process. Different states have different rule as to when a recount is required. Often a candidate can pay for a recount, even if the vote isn't close. Stein did in 2016. A recount has NEVER changed the vote by thousands in 3 or more states. It is very unusual for the difference to be even 1000 in one state. So, sure recounts should happen pursuant to law. But, almost always, they are a waste of time, certainly when the margin is more than 1000.

For example, the GA recount is clearly ridiculous. The Republicans were in charge. They had a hand audit of every single ballot and then certified. There is exactly ZERO chance of any changes more than 1000.