Here is the explanation of why Jill Stein is demanding a recount.

Here is the text of the TrustVote email I received which clarifies the whole recount situation. Many of us have been angry and this email will explain why Jill Stein is involved.

*************

Dear TrustVote.org member,

Please forgive me if you do not see your name in this email. I do not know the Mail merge software. My staff is on vacation.I am writing you on Thanksgiving weekend because I would like to clarify some facts about the recount, and also address a specific attack that is being circulated against Jill Stein and the recounts. I invite you to share what I am writing about with others.
I hope you have had a wonderful Thanksgiving!
Sincerely,
Lori

About the Recounts and Why They are Being Done: The money for the vote recounts in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania has been raised. As of this writing, she has raised $5,107,136. Many of you who are writing back to me are angry because TrustVote.org is supporting this recount. I want to make it clear that we have evidence that Jill’s votes were manipulated as were Hillary’s. It was a kind person on our mailing list who sent us screen shots of apparent vote manipulation of Jill’s votes in Maine that stimulated the Green Party to do the recount. Also, although Jill’s polls indicated that she was up to 5% in terms of national support by October 31st, her vote totals were down to about 1% everywhere in the nation. This is mysterious. Jill is supporting the recount for all Presidential candidates.

The role of TrustVote.org in this Recount: Our own Bob Fitrakis PhD, JD, who is the Green Party co-chairman for Jill Stein in Ohio as well as an election attorney, was integrally involved in setting up the recount. Your support has helped him be able to dedicate the time to this effort. Thank you! We would deeply appreciate your continued support both of Bob Fitrakis and of other local recount observers and lawyers in each state.

About an Attack on Jill's Integrity: Jill is also now being attacked by both Tromp and Hillary supporters. Writers supporting Trump are alleging that Jill appears to be ready to pocket the money for herself. This attack starts by quoting a paragraph on Jill's own donate page.
"All money raised goes toward recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. We hope to do recounts in all three states. If we only raise sufficient money for two, we will demand recounts in two states. If we only raise enough money for one, we will demand a recount in one state.

We cannot guarantee a recount will happen in any of these states we are targeting. We can only pledge we will demand recounts in those states.

If we raise more than what's needed, the surplus will also go toward election integrity efforts and to promote voting system reform."

I can understand how this might confuse people and generate suspicion. It was written when Jill was not clear she could raise the money, much like I, at TrustVote.org put in a sentence about donations you make to our site. This statement needs to be updated. The allegation that Jill will pocket the money completely for herself is completely WRONG. All money raised by Jill goes into a State trust account in each state. She is NOT in control of the money. If for some reason, the recounts were not happening, she would be obligated to return the money to donors. She has also hired a large law firm which will fight very strongly any state resistance to the recounts. the states could also express resistance by delaying the recounts beyond December 19th when the electors vote. This would be heavily disputed by the New York law firm. We also want the media to know of any resistance.

Why She Increased the Original Amount on her Donate Page: What she asked for in the beginning, by the way, was smaller than she needed. She was nervous that people would not donate. When money started pouring in, she upped the amounts needed, which was more accurate. I would like to see her update her website now and have made a request to Bob, her attorney that a statement about how the money will be held in state trust accounts now replace her old statement up above.

Other States Need to be Added: In my opinion, she also really needs to include Florida in the recount efforts. Pennsylvania has a large number of electronic voting machines with no paper trail. Florida also has questionable vote totals. Unlike Pennsylvania, Florida has a large number of optic scan machines. Optic scan machines use paper ballots that can be recounted. I am also making a request for Bob to speak to her about adding Florida.

Interesting Initial Responses from the Democratic Party: With respect to Hillary, I am not absolutely positive she will pick up the ball and run with it if the votes show manipulation. I imagine she would be heavily pressured by some to take back her concession. Obama has been opposing disputing the election results and wants to have a “smooth transition to Trump.” The Democratic party also was asserting before the election that the election was not rigged. Nonetheless we will see what happens.

I would appreciate if all of you who are TrustVote.org members would tell your friends about what I have revealed in this mailing, so that the truth be spread around. Let us see what we can do about supporting the recount further with our energy! I also welcome your feedback and can guarantee that I will have the time look at it especially if it is mailed to lori@trustvote.org.

Thanks so much again for your support!!
Sincerely,
Lori
415 847 5950 (cell)

*************

With a little luck we will all feel ok about this explanation and not argue with each other about how it came about.

Share
up
0 users have voted.

Comments

TheOtherMaven's picture

why wasn't Maine included in the recount demand? Not enough electoral votes to be worth the bother? No chance of roping in Hllbots with deep pockets for a state that Shills won?

I still don't like it, and think that somebody is gaming somebody. I'm just not as sure as I was who's the gamer and who are the marks.

up
0 users have voted.

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

One must request a recount within 5 days of the election. This could be why Maine is not being included.

up
0 users have voted.

It also doesn't explain why, receiving alleged evidence about Maine, one demands a recount in three states other than Maine.

up
0 users have voted.
terriertribe's picture

... when the evidence about Maine was received.

It was a kind person on our mailing list who sent us screen shots of apparent vote manipulation of Jill’s votes in Maine that stimulated the Green Party to do the recount. Also, although Jill’s polls indicated that she was up to 5% in terms of national support by October 31st, her vote totals were down to about 1% everywhere in the nation. This is mysterious. Jill is supporting the recount for all Presidential candidates.

It may have come too late to do anything there, but it may have been enough to convince the Greens that the difference between polls and results was mysterious enough to warrant action in those places where action could be taken.

Now, I agree the whole thing stinks, but you seemed to be looking for an explanation, and I believe this is a plausible conjecture.

up
0 users have voted.

Now interviewing signature candidates. Apply within.

It (the letter quoted in the diary) doesn't explain why they did not request it (a recount in Maine) within 5 days. It also doesn't explain why, receiving alleged evidence about Maine, one demands a recount in three states other than Maine

.

This is a correct statement about two very obvious omissions in the letter from the Green Party. It is not a request for "conjecture" about one of the two issues my post raised.

When someone asks the public for donations, the burden is not on the public to speculate in order to try to make sense of the request, especially when this letter purports to be explaining the request. Requests for donations from the public should be clear, specific, honest and sensible. IMO, the letter fails--and by a lot-- to meet those standards. http://caucus99percent.com/comment/217361#comment-217361

BTW, finding the explanation defective does not equal saying "the whole thing stinks."

up
0 users have voted.
Lookout's picture

http://trustvote.org/latest-update/

My impression is they want us to know about (and admit) election fraud in the US.

More details about the exit polls and the computer vote totals: The difference between exit poll screen shots for Wisconsin and other swing states show shifts right after the polls closed that are statistically impossible. We need to recount the votes in these swing states to see who really has won the Presidential election. The votes appeared to move from Clinton to Trump.

Perhaps the bottom line?

The Green party is only doing this because Hillary has not taken a stand on this situation.

I suspect that isn't totally satisfactory Henry, but it's the best info I can find.

up
0 users have voted.

“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”

The burden is not on me (or any of us) to guess or imagine or speculate why the Green Party is asking the public for donations. The Green Party has that burden. Moreover, the letter from Lori in the diary is supposed to be the explanation--the explanation, BTW, that came after millions of dollars had already been raised.

The reason the Hillary campaign did not take a stand (tho it has now, apparently) is that the Hillary campaign poured over this and found no evidence of misdeeds. Jill knows of no evidence of misdeeds. I don't think you raise millions before making that info public, either.

The original request was for a recount in three states Hillary lost, making it seem as though hanky panky in those states cost Hillary the election and the result could be reversed. You don't raise millions on that basis and then say, "we're trying to tell the public about rigged elections." And, BTW, this is, IMO, a very stupid way to educate the public about rigged elections, unless you have some reason to believe your recount or whatever will show rigging and apparently neither Jill nor Hillary has that. Moreover, this request reinforces the very incorrect impression that only Republicans rig elections. So, as an educational effort, it seems like a massive fail.

Also http://caucus99percent.com/comment/217361#comment-217361

up
0 users have voted.
polkageist's picture

They say they will expand the number of states sometime next week after everyone involved recovers from Thanksgiving. I think it wise to wait with the pertinent questions for a few days until the dust settles.

I don't like it that we even have to have a recount of any sort. I just want the populace to realize how crooked our elections are. Only transparency can cure this part of the illness.

up
0 users have voted.

-Greed is not a virtue.
-Socialism: the radical idea of sharing.
-Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
John F. Kennedy, In a speech at the White House, 1962

gulfgal98's picture

Only transparency can cure this part of the illness.

up
0 users have voted.

Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy

have their shorts in a knot. I cannot understan why Hillary and/or Jill Stein supporters are upset. Transparency is integral to honest elections, and honest elections are the corner stone of any democracy.

I was glad Hillary lost, and I was very upset that Trump won. I am very upset that Hillary stole the election from Bernie, and I will be very glad if Jill steals it from Trump. Walking and chewing gum at the same time is not all that hard to do.

up
0 users have voted.

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

is going to be President, and she's gonna be able to smile for the cameras and pretend to be a saint.

up
0 users have voted.

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

I am glad to get some explanation, though I want Stein herself to clarify.
I would like to see her try a risk analysis on her "maneuver".
Could her point not have been made in other states?

Let Clinton lead her own coup attempt, if that is what it is.

up
0 users have voted.
riverlover's picture

In desperate situations, odd decisions get made, similar to shit-flinging. I confess to no understanding of who/what/why/where. Only the when.

up
0 users have voted.

Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.

Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

the possibility of a genuine election that reflects the will of the people doesn't exist--unless Trump actually won without fraud.

A Hillary win cannot be authentic, because she already committed fraud.

That's a fact.

Transparency applied to the general will be reported and acted upon asymmetrically, because the media and the legal justice system protect Hillary Clinton. We have already seen this during the primary, when ample evidence of fraud and wrongdoing were ignored by the media and obstructed in the courts.

If we could get no satisfaction then, as citizens, no fair treatment, we have every reason to be suspicious when so much money and media attention is lavished on election fraud in the general, when the only change that could conceivably come about is that Hillary, who attained the nomination via fraud, will be installed as President--with a ready-made narrative of innocent victimhood at hand.

I tend to trust the people quoted here, so I think perhaps, as others have said, they are being played. Or perhaps they believe that fighting for election integrity anywhere is always a good, regardless of whether it installs someone who committed election fraud in the primary into office.

up
0 users have voted.

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

polkageist's picture

I appreciate the awfulness of the Clintons, but I want to make it a public scandal for the vast majority of people who still believe our elections are honest. I don't know how many people I have told about the primary fraud and suppression who look at me with surprise. Most people simply don't understand the enormity what has happened in this election. It's very disconcerting, but I will do whatever I can to highlight the changes our election system needs and to force people to look at what USA! USA! really means nowadays. Americans have become exceptionally evil, most without even knowing it.

When I look at the people Trump is ostensibly selecting for office, I want to vomit. Neither one of these horrible people deserve anything but prison. Hillary for capital crimes in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Central America and Trump for various suede-shoe salesman business/financial scams and arrested adolescence nastiness. I voted for Jill and I'm following her lead in this one because I want something positive out of this god-awful mess. We aren't going to get it unless we rub everyone's nose in what all of us here on C99 have seen. So far as I'm concerned this whole endeavor is for the purpose of showing everyone who will look at it the depth of depravity of our corporate masters. It's not enough to just dislike these people, we must convince everyone to loathe them.

Now to stop ranting for a minute. We have a difference of opinion here on what to do about this particular situation, and, for me, that's all it is. I want to take this opportunity to tell you how much I respect and enjoy your writing. All of us are in a bad place right now and only straightforward communication will do us any good. I think you are superb in getting your views across.

up
0 users have voted.

-Greed is not a virtue.
-Socialism: the radical idea of sharing.
-Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
John F. Kennedy, In a speech at the White House, 1962

Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

And it's really important to me that disagreements don't automatically become divisive, because I respect you, too.

up
0 users have voted.

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

I think your last two sentences are both true to some extent.
Did Stein have to challenge just those states which could flip election?

I dropped Green membership yesterday. May have to go back to them!
But this is too risky for the gain is my first impression.
Strongly averse to helping HRC in anyway just now.

Plus your general point seems correct to me.
You don't correct a faulty argument by simply changing its conclusion.
Though that will be claimed if HRC "wins"on the recounts. thx.

up
0 users have voted.
Bisbonian's picture

Which could flip the election?"

Yes. The laws governing recounts vary from state to state, but the principle that "we're not going to bother with the time and effort of a recount unless it is really close" is a universal one. Can you imagine going to California and saying, "we want a recount." It's obvious who won, there.

She had to choose the states which legally met the conditions of a recount, i.e. Where the race was close, where she got enough of the vote to even ask for a recount, and ultimately, where there was a chance that a recount would flip the state. Otherwise, why would the state bother?

up
0 users have voted.

"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X

dance you monster's picture

Whether a recount could flip a state would be material to the state election board's accepting that a recount take place. It does not necessarily have to be material to the requester's decision to pursue a recount. In Jill's case, the outcome at the top may well be entirely unimportant. She wants to see if Green voters' votes were stolen by either of the major-party candidates. Both major-party candidates and their campaigns are targets. If nothing turns up, no harm, no foul, just a lot of blogging fervor being expended. If it turns out Green votes were stolen, and can be demonstrated conclusively to have been stolen, that could shake the system. Even non-Green voters might be upset by that revelation, 'cuz what if they're next?

up
0 users have voted.

This effort will have to conclusively demonstrate that votes were stolen from one (or both) of the major party candidates for some voters to be upset. Even then it would have to be blown up into a huge scandal.

Most Americans just don't care about our government or who runs it. Peak voter participation, during "significant" Presidential contests, is about 50% of eligible voters. That means about 35% of the population ends up choosing our leaders. Even in these "high turnout" elections the further down-ticket one goes, and especially for non-partisan (i.e. party isn't listed) the more often choices are left blank or chosen more or less randomly with a bias toward persons listed higher up in the selection list (seriously, have a look at any down-ticket, near-local race with more than 2 candidates--odds are they all share the vote about equally).

up
0 users have voted.

during most presidential races, I beg to differ about this one in particular. I have heard many people say they would not vote because of anger about who both of the main parties ran. I therefore insist that their non-vote is a vote of no-confidence in both Clinton and Trump. Further, I'd love to see if we have some reversal this year of the typical down-ticket blank spaces, since I also know people who said they'd be voting only for down-ticket candidates.

I admit that my anecdotal evidence may not reflect voting in the whole country so your assessment may be more accurate.

up
0 users have voted.

A group of states could flip without together having numbers to flip national election. That is not the group she picked.

She could challenge where Clinton won. Nope.

I'd have to see a lot more to be convinced this was a good move.

up
0 users have voted.
edg's picture

New Hampshire is the only Northeastern state where Stein received less than 1% of the vote. Hillary Clinton won the state. Why isn't this state part of the recount?

Stein raised more money in 3 days for the recounts than she did during the entire 18 months of her 2016 presidential election campaign. Why didn't she fight this hard and raise money at this rate for the presidential campaign?

Stein votes came primarily at Clinton's cost. A recount could easily award Clinton more votes and Stein less. Why does Stein consider this a good outcome?

up
0 users have voted.

I have questions too, but the NH deadline has passed so that one question has been answered.

up
0 users have voted.

"We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty."

and she did not qualify to apply for a recount.

660:1 Application. Any candidate for whom a vote was cast for any office at a state general election may apply
for a recount, provided that the difference between the votes cast for the applying candidate and a candidate declared
elected is less than 20 percent of the total votes cast in the towns which comprise the office to be recounted. The
application shall be made in writing to the secretary of state and shall be submitted no later than the Friday following the
election. Each candidate requesting a recount shall pay the secretary of state fees as provided in RSA 660:2.

660:2 Fees. I. If the difference between the vote cast for the applying candidate and a candidate declared elected
shall be less than one percent of the total votes cast in the towns which comprise the office to be recounted, the following
fees shall apply:
(a) Candidate for president, United States senator or governor, $500.
(b) Candidate for United States representative, $250.
(c) Candidate for executive councilor, $100.
(d) Candidate for state senator or county officer, $50.
(e) Candidate for state representative, $10.

...

up
0 users have voted.

It's true right now like it was back then. The old devils are at it again. When I say devil you know who I mean these animals in the dark malicious politicians with nefarious schemes charlatans and crooked cops. - 'Old Devils' William Elliot Whitmore

edg's picture

The 20% rule is the bar she couldn't overcome even if she timely filed.

up
0 users have voted.

up
0 users have voted.

A Dream...

What if both Jills and Hillarys votes were stolen to some degree? What if the recount shows both Hill and Trump were rigging the election and his riggers were just better? Not a likely outcome sure...but wouldn't it be nice to have the blatant corruption out in the open?

up
0 users have voted.
lunachickie's picture

What if both Jills and Hillarys votes were stolen to some degree?

The nightmare is that someone can still exploit this situation sixteen fucking years after Al Gore.

wouldn't it be nice to have the blatant corruption out in the open?

There are a bunch of other ways to get there, besides risking outright civil revolt at this point in time.

up
0 users have voted.
Anja Geitz's picture

And not argumentatively, but what other ways?

There are a bunch of other ways to get there...

And what if this is the best opportunity to blow ALL of the corruption from every side out in the open?

up
0 users have voted.

There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier

edg's picture

we might as well speculate that Trump received far less votes than he should have because the other 3 candidates all benefited at his expense. Perhaps he'll end up winning the popular vote, too. Won't that be a wonderful outcome? Dr. Jill Stein will be considered a national hero by Trump supporters.

up
0 users have voted.
Thaumlord-Exelbirth's picture

Argue in favor of corruption?

...oh, wait... they already do that, don't they?

up
0 users have voted.
shaharazade's picture

In an election that was nothing but a anti-democratic rigged farce from the get go, it seems to me that the Clinton Democratic machine rigging and fear mongering did not manage to get enough people to vote for the The Mad Bomber and co. Who blames people for using their their lying eyes and seeing what she represents and the horrifying anti-humane global agenda she embodies.

The Democratic convention alone was enough to horrify anyone who was not a neoliberal/neocon, war hog, 'USA, USA, USA'. The Russians did it. Stronger together with Kissinger and Rubin to implement the intolerable status quo. So much for identity politics that do not offer anything but dubious lesser evilism. Good riddance I say. When evil gets to this by-partisan degree it's hard to extort the vote with fear. Trump out rigged her and she could not draw enough votes to counter act the Republicans. She is pure evil and a nasty piece of scary work herself.

Turns out a lot of people wanted to know what was in her damn e-mails and private speeches. Now that the Demorat's lost all three branches does any one believe that the Dem.rat bastard's in congress including the so called progressives will obstruct the lunatic Republicans? Nah, they will be complicit and call the betrayals 'victories for compromise'.

Once people with a brain in their head got a load of who and what the Clinton's and New Democratic party was about why would voters take their smelly bait. At least Obama was a talented conman with soaring populist bottom up change rhetoric but HRC's true arrogant disgusting colors just shine through. Her 'experience' only drove home the fact she was unfit to govern. I don't want a recount wherein the Clinton's wins and we get the TPP and corporate 1% rule and endless criminal bloody global war for profit and psychotic naked 1% power lust. Social liberalism my ass. No justice No Peace.

As for the Greens fuck them they are not only lame and useless but are putting their thumbs on the scale after the fact, all to get 5% of the vote to get on the ballot. That's not what democracy or a legitimate challenge to the oligarchic duopoly looks like. Everybody knows it rigged so what is this going to do but keep the by-partisan poltical debacle of an electoral circus show going indefinitely.

up
0 users have voted.
Lady Libertine's picture

of an awful lot of things Ive been seeing (thinking of the recent Keith Olbermann video a friend sent me wherein he recommends The Left (we) push for OKay lets activate the 25th Amendment wherein Trump is found to be unfit or 'unable to fulfill his duties' (by GOP establishment leadership) so they yank him and then we're stuck with Pence. Not to mention civil war. No thanks, KO.

Everybody knows it rigged so what is this going to do but keep the by-partisan political debacle of an electoral circus show going indefinitely.

Problem is... who gives a fvck? about election rigging. Outside of, ya know, us and our right wing counterparts (but only when we/they get "robbed"). Everybody knows its all rigged, and we/they feel powerless to do anything about it and most of America lets out a collective sigh and whispers "I'll be praying for them. Pass the gravy please."

So again, my thought wrt the various outcomes of an election inquiry or investigation of fraud that coughs up hard evidence, is THEN WHAT?

Is that when Bernie gets out his cape?

up
0 users have voted.
terriertribe's picture

Of course it's not rigged. The losers alway complain. If it were rigged there would be a big scandal and we would see it on tv. You might be able to rig something in a small town where you ran everything, but you couldn't do the whole country. Someone would go to jail. This isn't Russia. -- heard from a mix of voters.

I'm not so sure everybody knows it's all rigged.

up
0 users have voted.

Now interviewing signature candidates. Apply within.

I am all for exposing our corrupt election machinery and making a push for publicly hand-counted paper ballots. We can't even pretend to have a democracy until we eliminate computers from our elections.

Personally, I cannot believe that Stein received just 1% to 2% of the vote. Almost all Bernie supporters that I know, in addition to most of us on this site, would have never voted for HC after the primary, nor would they have voted for Trump. I believe the vast majority of us voted for Stein. I have seen some analyses that Stein should have received over 20% of the vote. Stein has a legitimate case to ask for a recount to put her over the 5% threshold. If an accurate recount is done (which is impossible with computerized systems), I am certain that the result would be that DT still won and Stein's votes were stolen by HC. After all, the biggest threat to the duopoly is the rise of a third party. I believe Stein was the party most adversely affected by election fraud.

As a practical matter, it is most likely true that the funding is coming from the HC camp. Stein could not raise the money on her own for other recounts. Still, exposing election fraud, if it is even possible, would be a huge benefit to our purported democracy. Let's hope it is not at the cost of HC being put in office.

Like AnotherPeasant (comment in the "Jill as Dupe" thread), I have also been on the issue of electronic vote-rigging since 2004 and suffered ridicule and scorn by loved ones and friends who before thought very highly of my thoughts and insights. I even subscribed to Harpers in 2012 when it became the first "mainstream" publisher to address computerized election fraud in Victoria Collier's "How to Rig an Election." I bought four copies of the print issue as well -- in my small effort to reward the publisher for its courage.

The Green Party also requested a recount of the NH primaries in 2008 -- in which people may recall that HC made a miraculous comeback to "win" the state and keep her campaign alive for a few more months. Bev Harris at BBV covered that extensively. The cheating in the recount was almost comical.

Publicly hand-counted paper ballots -- with a reliable chain-of-custody -- just has to be the standard if we want any democracy at all. To the extent that Stein's efforts can get us closer to that, I support her -- even if those efforts are being funded by HC's machine.

up
0 users have voted.
ThoughtfulVoter's picture

This Bernie supporter (in one of the 3 focused swing states being targeted for recount) was undecided until the night before the election, and then voted for Trump to stop Hillary and her war machine when I read polls showing my state going to Hillary.

I simply had to use my vote to stop Clinton, and I couldn't spend it on Jill.

If this happened over and over across the country, then yes I believe the results for Green Party were that low. I was truly undecided and waffling, but several times I did surveys for Jill during the election, because at that particular time I was leaning toward her.

This election had nothing to do with how we felt about Jill, but everything to do with how we felt about Hillary.

up
0 users have voted.

I totally missed that you were paraphrasing OTHERS' lame argument. My bad, and I sincerely apologize.

up
0 users have voted.
Hetrose's picture

my expectation of the outcome of any and all valid recounts, votes were stolen by both the Republican and Democratic campaigns. Then the question is, what happens to the Bobbing Heads of the two campaigns? Are they disqualified? Do we start over? Is there an open Civil War? Oh, my!

up
0 users have voted.

Jill raised $3.5 million for her whole campaign, and now wants $7 million for recounts. I never heard of a poll that had her at 5 percent nationally, and the three-state recount won't achieve the 5 percent goal. I suspect the more than $5 million raised so far comes from Hillary dead-enders.

My understanding is that in case the recounts don't all happen, the Green Party gets to keep the money and promises it will go for election integrity efforts of some kind.

Lastly, I don't agree with the recount effort lending credence to theories about Russian hackers. On MSNBC and some pro-Hillary blogs, they keep saying there is no doubt Putin rigged the election for Trump, but they never present any evidence.

up
0 users have voted.

"We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty."

Remember when we first heard that one?
Does anyone really think Jill Stein was able to raise that much money, when she couldn't raise nearly that amount for her own election, or to help Bernie in the primary?
Transparency?
Okay. I'd like a list of all the Clinton folks, including David Brock, CTR, who gave money for this recount.
Probably all better spent in Louisiana, but then that wouldn't call attention to Jill Stein.
Sad.
The election is over. President-elect Donald Trump won. The Clintons are not going back to the White House. Think we dodged a big tuck load of bullets on this one.

up
0 users have voted.
Roy Blakeley's picture

The Greens and Libertarians financed a recount in Ohio in 2004 to which I contributed. Kerry refused to have anything to do with the recount. The recount occurred but there were numerous irregularities so nothing was really resolved. (The fact that a fair recount was not allowed to happen speaks volumes.) In any case, I am willing to give Jill Stein the benefit of the doubt on this (i.e. she suspects voting irregularities and would like for them to be revealed). The Greens would not benefit in the short run from this, but if the recount was allowed to go ahead and the election was found to be fraudulent, the Greens would stand to benefit in the long run by demonstrating that they have integrity while the Dems and Rethugs and crooks and liars.

up
0 users have voted.
WindDancer13's picture

The author starts out being all self-effacing to be perceived as honest, then goes on in the sweetest of voices to bring you an authoritarian message: "We see everything so clearly. You don't." Stein hired a very large (and I am sure expensive) law firm so rest assured that your money is well spent.

Why haven't we heard of this "evidence" that votes were stolen from Jill in Maine, and why would it stimulate a recount in three unrelated states? And only states that Trump won even though the vote difference in two of them a much, much greater than some of the states that HRC won? I would like to hear more about this evidence and see a direct link to how they relate to the three states being recounted.

For those who are saying that it is the integrity of elections that is at stake, think about this: If corporations want to rig an election, they are going to. If they get caught doing it one way, they will devise another. And, yes, there are other ways to fight for our rights other than just voting.

"Cynic, n: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be."--Ambrose Bierce

up
0 users have voted.

We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass

riverlover's picture

And funny to have it thrown in one's face like a pie.

up
0 users have voted.

Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.

No matter how cynical you become, it's never enough to keep up.

Lily Tomlin

up
0 users have voted.

to Lily's wife, Jane Wagner, who writes all the material. BTW, they married after 42 years as partners!
Need to laugh, read: The Search for Signs of Intelligent Life in the Universe.
Especially, definition of "reality" Smile

up
0 users have voted.

go figure.

up
0 users have voted.

the public to donate for recounts, I missed it. It talks about imoney for the recount, how it will be used, why the total requested was increased several times as money came in. (The goals went up as money came in so that money would keep coming in. DUH.) Everything but the specific reason for the recount in any state but Maine. (BTW, did media and the proper state and federal authorities get those screen caps from Maine? If not, why not? Is there evidence of wrongdoing in other states? If so, what is the "evidence?" Has it gone to the proper state and federal authorities and the media? If not, why not?)

If there is actual evidence that Hillary's votes were messed with, how come Hillary's campaign did not demand recounts? Because Hillary and Bill are such shy, retiring people when it comes to electing Hillary? Because Hillary saw a shot at the Oval Office she's been aiming for since law school and said, "Oh, never mind. I don't want to be a bother?"

“Were this year’s deviations from pre-election polls the results of a cyberattack?” J. Alex Halderman, a computer science professor at the University of Michigan who has studied the vulnerabilities of election systems at length, wrote on Medium on Wednesday as the calls based on his conclusions mounted. “Probably not.”

More likely, he wrote, pre-election polls were “systematically wrong.” But the only way to resolve the lingering questions would be to examine “paper ballots and voting equipment in critical states,” he wrote.

Tellingly, the pleas for recounts have gained no support from the Clinton campaign, which has concluded, along with outside experts, that it is highly unlikely the outcome would change even after an expensive and time-consuming review of ballots.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/23/us/politics/vote-count-hillary-clinton... (The NYT framing this as Hillary supporters seeking answers!)

Guess what, Prof Halderman, "lingering questions" never get resolved, never. People still dispute the particulars of Lincoln's assassination, let alone Kennedy's, the Warren Commission, the events of 911, etc.

Finally, if the machines in Maine flipped votes, the solution is not to recount votes in three other states. It's not even to recount votes in Maine. Recounting flipped votes only gives the allegedly flipped votes credibility. The solution is to get a software expert to examine the machines, preferably with a court order impounding the machines. And, if your goal really is to expose election fraud, you could do that in Maine no matter how may days had passed.

Stein was interviewed on TV. When asked the reason for the recount, she replied with a total non sequitur, namely that 87% of Americans were disgusted with both candidates in this election. If anyone figures out what that has to do with asking the public to donate for a recount in three specific states that went for Trump, please pm me. The connection of Stein's reply to a simple, reasonable, straightforward question went way over my head. Also, when asked if she had any reason to believe the original count in the 3 states in which she was seeking a recount was wrong, Jill said she knew of no reason to doubt the original count. Color me befuddled.

I don't know what the truth is, but I see a lot of tap dancing, the purpose of which seems to be to avoid telling the truth. We don't want to state the real reason we are asking for donations for a recount, so we are talking about the public hating both candidates and how Jill is not pocketing the money.

If this were Clinton instead of Stein, we'd be asking some hard questions and looking for answers that did not deflect or change the subject. When are we going to learn the lessons of 2008 and 2016? When are we going to stop giving a pass to certain politicians because we like them and therefore we are convinced that they can't possibly be snowing us about anything?

up
0 users have voted.

I haven't seen Stein's interview. What I have seen is Stein trending on my yahoo homepage, rating a big picture. She has also taken picture/top story spot on Huffpo for a solid day.
This will not change the system. The duopoly wants it, and it is here to stay.

up
0 users have voted.
Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

The closest thing I have to a politician I still respect is Tulsi Gabbard. And there's a slight hesitation in me even about her.

I wonder if Stein understands that this is likely to lose her about half of the people who currently support her party, and will get no lasting gratitude from the Democrats to the Greens.

up
0 users have voted.

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

lunachickie's picture

wouldn't one?

this is likely to lose her about half of the people who currently support her party, and will get no lasting gratitude from the Democrats to the Greens.

And that's the kicker, right there--the Green Party doesn't have fuck-all to do with ANY of this!

up
0 users have voted.

up
0 users have voted.

The solution is to get a software expert to examine the machines, preferably with a court order impounding the machines.

It sounds like there are experts in statistics and computer science involved.

up
0 users have voted.

Beware the bullshit factories.

You go to court and get the machines impounded so no one can "unrig" them before they're examined. However, neither Stein nor the Hillary campaign knows of any reason to suspect the first count, yet a recount is being demanded, and only in states lost by Hillary. Those two things are very problematic, for me, anyway.

up
0 users have voted.
riverlover's picture

did one of those maw-gulps before I could post. These F%^&*# tubes!!!! It fits here as well. Most of us on c99 are American citizens, more likely than average to hold a US passport and have used it. Many of us own (debt-free, maybe not guilt-free) the property we live on. I sense a sideways slide by PTB to get their outcome. No worries pissing off every one of us, Americans. Tremorless earthquake, nothing to feel, but we on all manufactured sides sense that. Yes, some more than others now, some will always be slower. No ranking, it's an individual thing. I fear bad and grand times ahead.

up
0 users have voted.

Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.

Since 2008, the President in 2017 was going to be either Hillary Clinton or a Republican. The only surprise was that the Republican was Trump, who is unpredictable, instead of Jeb! Frankly, I think the PTB would have preferred Hillary, and they thought (again) that she was inevitable, but they'll settle for Trump.

up
0 users have voted.
mouselander's picture

Jill Stein is far from alone in questioning the integrity of the American voting system, or in advocating for a recount and/or audit.

A very interesting article was published on November 18th in USA Today by the following two gentlemen:

Ron Rivest is Institute Professor at MIT and was a member of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission Technical Guidelines Development Committee. Philip Stark, associate dean of mathematical and physical sciences at the University of California, Berkeley,was appointed to the board of advisers of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

Obviously, these guys don't have the credentials, the credibility, the intellectual firepower or the general chops of a lot of the sage doubters who regularly post on C99 - that's understood. Nonetheless, they do manage to offer up some fairly persuasive arguments.

A full manual recount of the paper records would be definitive, but that’s unnecessarily difficult, expensive and time-consuming if the results are actually right.

There’s an easier way: an audit that manually examines a random sample of the ballots in a way that has a large chance of detecting and correcting incorrect results. This is called a “risk-limiting” audit. If the reported winner of a contest really won, a risk-limiting audit generally needs to examine only a small fraction of the ballots. But if the reported winner actually lost, a risk-limiting audit has a large chance of indicating that a full hand count is needed to set the record straight.

Risk-limiting audits are a crucial check on election integrity and accuracy even when elections are not controversial and margins are wide. They have been endorsed by the Presidential Commission on Election Administration and many organizations concerned with election integrity. Colorado law requires risk-limiting audits starting in 2017, and California law requires them for deploying some new voting systems.

So these guys are actually advocating for a more limited audit, which I for one agree would seem to make more sense. But I'm not sure that someone in Jill Stein's position has the option of requesting only a risk-limiting audit.

There is no federal law mandating election audits. A number of states perform some kind of audit, but our research shows those audits have little or no chance of detecting and correcting erroneous results. To audit this election effectively will require immediate legal action.

Auditing surprisingly few ballots could give 95% confidence that the results are correct in every state: about 1.5 million ballots in all, a bit over 1% of the ballots cast.

But if we just want to check whether Donald Trump won the election, an audit might examine even fewer ballots, because it could proceed in stages.

First it would check the results in the states Trump won. If auditing confirms those results, there’s no need to audit in the states Clinton carried: Trump really won. That means auditing about 700,000 ballots in the 29 states Trump won, about 0.5% of the ballots cast in this election.

Anyone possessing basic Googling skills can quickly ascertain that Rivest and Stark are far from alone among people with expert knowledge in this field who are advocating for closer election oversight and other reforms in the voting process. If Jill Stein's recount efforts increase public awareness of the manifest flaws and vulnerabilities in the American system of voting, then I can't help thinking that would be a very positive and desirable outcome.

How could checking just 0.5% of the ballots give such high confidence?

States where the contest wasn’t close probably won’t have to check many ballots. If their results are right, even a small random sample is likely to have a majority for Trump that would be implausible if Clinton had actually won.

Missouri had such a wide margin that examining just 10 ballots should give high confidence. Texas would need to check about 700.

The few states where the contest was tight would have to do more work. Michigan had the smallest margin among states that Trump carried. To get 95% confidence there would require checking about 11% of the ballots.

It does not take much technology to conduct these audits: dice (to select random ballots), a pencil and paper, and access to the paper ballots. The calculations are simple addition and subtraction. They could be done by a fifth-grader. No programming would be required.

This is an assurance of democracy our nation can afford and should perform routinely. Electronic-only voting systems should be replaced with systems that generate a paper trail, and election results should be audited against the paper trail to ensure that election outcomes are correct.

There is still time to audit this election — barely. States only have until Dec. 13 to give their final results to the Electoral College.

Americans should demand this simple step to ensure that the machinery of democracy worked. To add your voice, please sign this petition.

A couple of final points. The fact that many eminent and respected academics, not just politicians, are supporting a recount or audit would suggest that this is a subject upon which reasonable and well-intentioned people can honestly differ. In my humble O, those whose default response always seems to be to heap scorn and derision on those they disagree with are deserving of the same degree of contempt they so freely radiate towards others.

Second, to anyone who believes a recount is likely to change the election result and install Hillary Clinton as the next president - well, I would truly like some of what you're smoking. That's just not the way things work in the real world. Trump is the president-elect, and will be inaugurated as president on January 20th. In the unlikely event that enough votes are changed or disallowed to give the election to Clinton, the outcome would be litigated for years - meanwhile, Trump's elevation to the presidency would become a fait accompli. The idea that the inauguration would be delayed, or that Trump once installed would be forced out, is preposterous. Ain't gonna happen.

Considering what an absolute shitheel Donald Trump is, and also the rogue's gallery of fanatics and hustlers he's surrounded himself with, anything that casts doubts on his legitimacy is in my estimation a very good thing indeed.

So bravo to Jill Stein for once again standing tall and doing the right thing, regardless of what it costs her in terms of the estimation of people whose approval, as far as I can see, is a thing of very small worth in any case.

up
0 users have voted.

inactive account

Hawkfish's picture

He is the R in the RSA public key encryption system. His opinion on security is like Einstein's opinion on gravity.

up
0 users have voted.

We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg

up
0 users have voted.
shaharazade's picture

but as some asshole dictator once said 'what is extraordinarily important is this—who will count the votes, and how.' Who will conduct the recount and do the numbers? This is not a technological problem it's massive voter suppression and fraud on every level, it's systemic and by-partisan. Data and math are measurements but in this case who and how will the truth of this farce of an election ever be brought to light? The recount will find what ever suit's the 'owners of the place' preferred outcome of the election.

Like the Bengazir! hearings it will be a circus show that only skims the partisan surface and never deals with the underlying truth. So will the DOJ, congress, 'experts' or some so called nonpartisan org. conduct the recount? Sounds like an endless sham election loop to me. Will they go back and count the ballots from Florida in 2000? Will they recount the 2016 Democratic primary vote in key states? Having the perpetrators who have rigged our whole system try to figure out who really won is absurd. Maybe the UN should be in charge of the recount as they are so unbiased, not. What we need is to have our thumbs dyed red or blue to indicate which poison we picked.

up
0 users have voted.
edg's picture

But even I see the flaw in their logic. Random sampling won't work because ballots are not random. There is a geographic dispersal. Consider Michigan. If you select 1,000 ballots from Livonia, 75% of them will be for Hillary Clinton. On the other hand, if you select 1,000 ballots from Zeeland, 75% of them will be for Donald Trump.

up
0 users have voted.

It would be a random 5% sample from each precinct. Then compare the result to the count in that precinct. It's math, folks.

up
0 users have voted.
lunachickie's picture

that's "Statistical sampling".

No, Virginia, it isn't quite the same thing. At all.

up
0 users have voted.

No, Virginia, the science of statistics is not subjective like a belief Santa Claus. At all. See below.

up
0 users have voted.
edg's picture

That's not how audits are conducted. See: Post Election Audits

up
0 users have voted.

It is the science of statistics, which is based on math. The sampling is based on math as well. It is why, with a statistically/mathematically valid sampling (according to well-established rules) and a straight-up exit poll (for whom did you vote), accurate predictions of who will win an election can be made with a tiny percentage of the vote in. It is not perfect, but that is why there is a 2% margin of error (which is actually generous based on the state of the science) allowed before a presumption of fraud is assumed when elections are monitored for their integrity.

This is different than pre-election polling, which is not only not nearly as precise, but which is also corrupted for partisan purposes.

up
0 users have voted.
lunachickie's picture

making like you have the ability to make a prediction based on someone's analysis of statistics, using mathematical suppositions and proprietary formulas--that's not science, that's using science as an art form to make a prediction.

And there was no official exit polling anyway, so it's kind of a moot point, on top of that.

Boy, how'd you like to be the schlub that ruled "No Exit Polls" for this election? I'll bet his/her ass is in a sling right about now...

up
0 users have voted.

Sorry, you are flat wrong. Pre-election polling is based on statistics, but has a much larger margin of error and seems like more of an art; exit-polling statistical analysis is highly accurate and seems more like a science. The fact is, statistics is a math-based science. THAT IS WHY THEY DITCHED EXIT POLLS FOR THE LAST PRIMARIES. If done accoding to the established laws of this science, exit polls provide inarguable proof of hank-panky in the vote count if the margin of error exceeds 2% by any substantial amount. It does not tell you how the fraud was done, however

Edison Mitofsky does the exit polling for the MSM. It hides its unadjusted raw data from the public until long after the election, and corrupts that data with actual returns (which are fraudulent) until its final "exit polls" match the final results very closely.

Imagine how accurate the science must be to actually and confidently presume fraud if only a 2% margin of error is exceeded. That is the international standard for election integrity observers -- based on the science.

up
0 users have voted.
lunachickie's picture

They didn't just ditch exit polls in some of the primaries. GE exit polling was limited as well, so you don't even have an original baseline of an entire picture to base it all on. You can't base your statistical extrapolation on partial data for this purpose--certain states do not represent "all states" (which is the solid argument for keeping the Electoral College, too, but that's for another day).

So the only thing remaining is statistical analysis of art. So no. Sorry. I'm not convinced. And it's people like me you need to convince the most--Democrats living in a Really Red area of the United States, who will at some point end up living under virtual siege if any "recounts" show, lo and behold, that Hillary Clinton actually won this election in a couple of states. Because some of these people are fucking nuts, and you will be accused of not giving a damn about your fellow countrymen and womens safety before it's through.

If you are going to risk massive civil unrest, you need to do better than "statistical analysis of art". And you also need to set expectations up front with the population before one recount begins. Can we agree on even that much?

up
0 users have voted.

Well, I am saying that a 5% random audit that follows the scientific rules of the science of statistics would be just as accurate as exit polling done properly -- maybe more accurate because you are looking at actual ballots and you don't have the problem of people lying about their votes when they leave the polls (which almost never happens). Of course, there are other issues, such as chain-of-custody of the ballots and finding uncorrupt, competent statisticians seeing to it that the rules of the science are followed. Garbage in, garbage out, you know.

Your points about the political wisdom of a recount are valid. The issue is whether the risk that HC reverses the result and takes office (and civil unrest, etc,) is worth taking to maybe finally expose the fraud in our election process. I actually agree with you that at this moment it is probably not worth the risk. I despise and fear HC that much. However, I have also been waiting 12 years for the issue of election fraud to gain traction in the public eye. Therefore, it is a close call for me, and I can see others assessing that the risk is worth it.

Statistics is still a science, though. (Smiley face)

Love your passion! Keep fighting for what you believe in!

up
0 users have voted.
GreatLakeSailor's picture

They are reporting that while Stein will not personally keep any extrabucks, extrabucks will be used for the Green Party.

The announcement came as Green Party candidate Jill Stein's Thanksgiving fundraising blitz passed $5 million. The money is well beyond the $2 million mark the Green Party initially set, and Wisconsin party officials said that any additional money not used for the recount would be used to train Green Party candidates for local office. The goal as of Friday was to raise $7 million.

linky-linky: http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/25/politics/green-party-recount-wisconsin/ind...

up
0 users have voted.

Compensated Spokes Model for Big Poor.

Not so? Green Party keeps it?

up
0 users have voted.
GreatLakeSailor's picture

State (Green) Party or State Government? It isn't even clear if they mean the national Greens or the state Greens.

I have no more knowledge than what is quoted by fake news site CNN, so who knows?

up
0 users have voted.

Compensated Spokes Model for Big Poor.

I thought I saw that if a recount is held the excess over cost would stay with the individual state governments. But I have seen all kinds of stuff and really have no idea. There are comments on this thread that say different. thx.

up
0 users have voted.
lunachickie's picture

Fascinating. considering there's been NOTHING about any of it on the Green Party website to date. Maybe CNN knows something we don't, now? Maybe they're getting ready to start spinning toward "clubbing Stein over the head for causing all this angst" with all her silly recount talk. Which would make me wonder if maybe Trumpsky has been behind all of it?

Good grief....

up
0 users have voted.
lunachickie's picture

where does the US prove that Russia hacked our election?

One doesn't have to impugn Dr. Stein to demonstrate that. When did that happen? That link doesn't really say....

up
0 users have voted.
Deja's picture

And, I know people tend to hate Dr. Phil, but I tend to love some of his Philisms. Not like, "Pray to God, but row for shore!" (Though I love it, it doesn't apply here.)

More like, "The best predictor of future behavior, is recent, past behavior."

For Her Heinous, that means, to me, she likely stole any votes that might have been stolen. ALSO, proven by the wikileaks dumps, her peeps are a conniving bunch, so none can be trusted. Ever. Period.

Sooo, if the narrative is that the Russians did it (especially since her buddy in chief wants to "protect" Ukraine *cough*) then BULLSHIT!

It was an inside job, and dude is dead by now, or poor bastard is chained up on the Lolita express or worse. *Her media operatives were mentioning "fake emails" and "Russian hackers" right before Brazille was outed in a dump. Too damned convenient for my taste!

up
0 users have voted.
gulfgal98's picture

I believe in transparency, but now it looks like we all are being played.

If Clinton overturns the Electoral College as it stands now, there will be violence as a result.

This is our national nightmare, courtesy of the Democratic party and Hillary Clinton who cheated in every possible way and who promoted Trump. Either way this turns out, we lose. I wanted transparency, but now I give up.

up
0 users have voted.

Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy

Dr Jill Stein is performing a great public service . I Thank and Bless her for her brave and selfless service. As Robert Reich recently stated :

Jill Stein is doing America a service. Just 90 minutes before Wisconsin’s 5 pm deadline today for filing with the state’s Election Commission, she filed her petition for an election recount in Wisconsin. She has standing to seek such a recount because she was on the ballot in Wisconsin, and has raised over $5 million so far to pay for it. She also promises to seek recounts in Pennsylvania and Michigan. If the recounts show Hillary Clinton won these three states, Clinton will have secured enough electoral votes to win the election. (Electors officially submit their ballots December 19.)

As I noted yesterday, a group of data experts and election lawyers have urged such a recount in these three states on suspicion that a cyber-attack could have manipulated the results of the election – noting anomalies suggesting that Clinton did more poorly in Wisconsin counties that used voting machines, as opposed to those that relied on paper ballots. (It’s no small irony that if all Stein votes in Wisconsin had gone to Clinton, Clinton would have won the state even without a recount.)

If Stein’s campaign wishes to file recount petitions in the other states as promised, she must do so by Monday to meet Pennsylvania’s deadline, and Wednesday to meet the Nov. 30 deadline in Michigan.
I think we owe Jill Stein our thanks (and our donations to get this recount done as well).

up
0 users have voted.

EJF

ThoughtfulVoter's picture

I wonder where the millions are coming for the recount? Do Green supporters have a hidden source of wealth? Does this money have to be disclosed to anyone like campaign funds do or is it dark money?

I personally am not connecting the dots here...of all the things Jill could be involved in or collect cash for, why this? How does doing this help her party's reputation in the future? How many voters will lose respect for her over this? How does this help her grow the Green Party?

up
0 users have voted.

Trump is prez; Hill conceded, reluctantly. Obama declared that there has been zero Russian interference in the election. The money is coming from deluded Hill Bots and probably deluded Soros. There will be no recount in PA because there is no paper trail. I repeat: Hill Will Never Be Prez!

The Greens, however, get to keep leftover money and Jill gets the press to give her national name recognition; something she never got during the campaign. I love the idea of Jill shilling Hill. The Greens and Jill will get a boost from this money infusion and press coverage, with an eye toward 2020.

up
0 users have voted.