I have this vague sense of unease.

I've read the diaries here and elsewhere regarding the recount, and I have a vague sense that we are about to be royally scammed. First, there is this from http://trustvote.org/latest-update/

About celebrating if we succeed: If we are successful in doing even some of these recounts, I would like to create a page honoring those of you who have contributed both to TrustVote.org and to the campaign. THANK YOU SO MUCH FROM THE BOTTOM OF MY HEART.
Our hopeful contribution to Hillary: Also the purpose of all of these recounts is to provide solid evidence to Hillary Clinton so she can feel comfortable taking back her concession. The Green party is only doing this because Hillary has not taken a stand on this situation.
Let us hope that we can create enough evidence for Hillary to get on board!

Let me say that from what I learned about these people from the primary, I thought I could trust them. In fact, I gave them a substantial contribution for election integrity. But what I am seeing on their web page here does NOT describe a desire for a true outcome. There is now no pretense of what they (or Lori at least) consider a fair outcome, and she has a very personal expression on the official trustvote website. I can only imagine what will be discovered.

Then, there is this, from today:

http://wearechange.org/gone-rogue-jill-stein-hires-dnc-lawyer-michigan-r...

Gone Rogue? Jill Stein Hires DNC Lawyer For Michigan Recount Effort

In a move that is being described as “scandalous” and “dangerous” privately by Green Party insiders, Jill Stein has hired a former Michigan Democratic Party Chairman as her lawyer in the state’s recount effort. Stein’s new lawyer for the Michigan recount, Democratic political consultant Mark Brewer, is a member of the Democratic National Committee and a past chair of the Association of State Democratic Chairs.
Not only is this decision bad optics, but it is also a conflict of interest. If a Democratic Party operative is running the recount effort, will he expose any corruption from the Clinton campaign that is uncovered, or hide it?

With the mainstream press spouting nothing but REAL fake news and shouting RUSSIA from the rooftops, this feels ominous to me.

Share
up
0 users have voted.

Comments

snoopydawg's picture

fraud during the primaries.
I went to DK to read Markos's rant and the rebuttal diary and all over both of them they said
Hillary got more votes than Bernie did.
Hill and the DNC didn't cheat.
Hillary won fair and square.
Yes the Nevada caucus was violent and no, it wasn't rigged.
Russia rigged and interfered with the election.
And of course this site made an appearance and we wrote bad things about Hillary.
Period. End of debate.

up
0 users have voted.

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

Statisticians Urge Recount of Sanders-Clinton Primary Results, as Clinton Now Urged to Audit General Election

https://soapboxie.com/us-politics/Statisticians-Urge-Recount-of-Sanders-...

Now they are floating recount of Dem primary results, along with "audit: of the general election. I simply do not believe they would ever consider doing that. The other part of the headline is an "audit' of the general election.

I personally think that the intent is to delay finalizing the election results, while blaming Russia for possibly hacking the election. But wait, look at this!

US House Seeks Syria-War Escalation

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/11/22/us-house-seeks-syria-war-escalation/

Late in the day, on Nov. 15, one week after the U.S. elections, the lame-duck Congress convened in special session with normal rules suspended so the House could pass House Resolution 5732, the “Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act” calling for intensifying the already harsh sanctions on Syria, assessing the imposition of a “no fly zone” inside Syria (to prevent the Syrian government from flying) and escalating efforts to press criminal charges against Syrian officials.

HR5732 claims to promote a negotiated settlement in Syria but, as analyzed by Friends Committee for National Legislation, it imposes preconditions which would actually make a peace agreement more difficult.

There was 40 minutes of “debate” with six representatives (Ed Royce, R-California; Eliot Engel, D-New York; Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Florida; Dan Kildee, D-Michigan; Chris Smith, R-New Jersey; and Carlos Curbelo, R-Florida) all speaking in favor of the resolution. There were few other representatives present, but the House Foreign Affairs Committee stated that the resolution was passed “unanimously” without mentioning these special conditions.

According to Wikipedia, “Suspension of the rules is a procedure generally used to quickly pass non-controversial bills in the United States House of Representatives … such as naming Post Offices…” In this case, however, the resolution could lead to a wider war in the Middle East and potentially World War III with nuclear-armed Russia.

Most strikingly, the resolution calls for evaluating and developing plans for the United States to impose a “no fly zone” inside Syria, a sovereign nation, an act of war that also would violate international law as an act of aggression. It also could put the U.S. military in the position of shooting down Russian aircraft.

So, delay election results, Obama and Soros get their war with Russia.

I just read a post at https://www.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/5fu7xz/election_fraud_hac...

Election fraud matters. Every time someone tried to convince me to vote for Hillary Clinton my response was ‘election fraud matters to me and I can’t vote for a candidate who obtained the Democratic nomination through a rigged primary.'Hillary Clinton and her campaign (and even people in the Obama administration) have been accusing Russia of attempting to influence the outcome of the presidential election in favor of Trump. Right before the election, the accusations against Russia hacking our election reached a fever pitch. If our government feels that our voting system is/was under “attack” by a foreign nation as was repeatedly implied (if not explicitly stated), then it should be defended. We need to secure the integrity of our election and protect it from foreign “invaders”.
How can we do this? The answer is actually very simple. Since this is an "attack" on our nation, an attack at the very foundation of our democracy, the integrity of our electoral system must. be. defended. But who could possibly conduct the recount and audit of such a massive undertaking? Who would the people trust? Who would have a vested interest that this process be carried out fairly and properly? The National Guard.
The National Guard is respected by our citizens. The National Guard is on the scene during floods, hurricanes, wildfires and other disasters, helping the citizens in time of need. Each state can use their own National Guard to oversee and conduct the audit and the re-count of their own vote.
But how can we pay for such a massive undertaking? Since the National Guard is part of the Department of Defense, the money to pay for the defense of the county's elections would come from the DoD's massive budget. We can use a portion of our huge military budget to "defend" our country! We can actually use our “war” budget for the benefit of our country rather than the destruction of other ones. The most important question is: does this country have the will to actually address the problem of election fraud and restore electoral integrity to our democracy?
Discuss. PS Thanks to the mod team for handholding and editing my first ( and possibly only ) post.

Laying the groundwork for National Guard overseeing audit. Sounds so reasonable, first time poster, CTR still around? With just a bit of angry suspicion of the populace, bam, Obama gets his martial law.

up
0 users have voted.
snoopydawg's picture

Those bastards trying to force this bill through don't give a damn about protecting Syrian lives. They want to force a war with Russia because that is what will come from a no fly zone and they know that.
And Engel is lying his ass off as noted below

Rep. Engel said, “Four years ago I thought we should have aided the Free Syrian Army. They came to us in Washington and begged us for help. … They were simply looking for weaponry. I really believe if we had given it to them, the situation in Syria would have been different today.”

That narrative is nonsense. By late 2011, the U.S. was actively coordinating, training and supplying armed opposition groups. When Muammar Gaddafi’s Libyan government was toppled in fall 2011, the CIA oversaw the diversion of Libyan weapons to the Syrian armed opposition, as documented in the Defense Intelligence Agency report of October 2012.

And when Obama drew his red line and said that Gaddafi had used sarin gas on the Syrian people he knew damned well that the Free Syrian army (Al Quada and its branches were the ones who used it. The CIA or Turkey gave it to them and he knew that. Gawd! He's has to be a sociopath to be able to do the things he's done.
Then there's this.

up
0 users have voted.

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

up
0 users have voted.

up
0 users have voted.
snoopydawg's picture

Those bastards trying to force this bill through don't give a damn about protecting Syrian lives. They want to force a war with Russia because that is what will come from a no fly zone and they know that.
And Engel is lying his ass off as noted below

Rep. Engel said, “Four years ago I thought we should have aided the Free Syrian Army. They came to us in Washington and begged us for help. … They were simply looking for weaponry. I really believe if we had given it to them, the situation in Syria would have been different today.”

That narrative is nonsense. By late 2011, the U.S. was actively coordinating, training and supplying armed opposition groups. When Muammar Gaddafi’s Libyan government was toppled in fall 2011, the CIA oversaw the diversion of Libyan weapons to the Syrian armed opposition, as documented in the Defense Intelligence Agency report of October 2012.

And when Obama drew his red line and said that Gaddafi had used sarin gas on the Syrian people he knew damned well that the Free Syrian army (Al Quada and its branches were the ones who used it. The CIA or Turkey gave it to them and he knew that. Gawd! He's has to be a sociopath to be able to do the things he's done.
Then there's this.
Wasn't it great that Bill could get richer and so could the Clinton foundation after they sold the weapons to the Saudis?

These weapons transfers were secret. For the public record, it was acknowledged that the U.S. was supplying communications equipment to the armed opposition while U.S. “allies” — Saudi Arabia and Qatar — were supplying the weaponry. This is one reason that Saudi purchases of weapons skyrocketed during this time period; they were buying weapons to replace those being shipped to the armed opposition in Syria. It was very profitable for U.S. arms manufacturers.

In the article there's a picture of the 'rebels'

TERRORISTS

which this country armed and funded with the boy that they beheaded!
And after they did that, what did Hillary or Obama do?
No a damned thing!
Good lord I have no idea how anyone in our government can sit back and watch the horrors that they vote to unleash against innocent people!
And that goes to the people who willingly join the military to go into countries that haven't threatened the USA.
Don't they learn about the Nuremberg trials during their basic training?
Invading another country that hasn't threatened another one is the greatest war crime according to the Nuremberg laws!

up
0 users have voted.

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

We can only hope that people in the military will not go along with it. They know what it means. And why is Soros still on the loose? Apparently, Obama hasn't got enough shekles gathered yet, a world war would mean a big bonus.

up
0 users have voted.

bill was passed, but here they are:

[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcvYmy7DIlU width:375]

[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDm3pe4mc8w width:375]

[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LtuhsBU50g width:375]

From the last video:

This past weekend, I met with members of the Syrian Community in Charleston, West Virginia to discuss ways that the federal government can help the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Syria.

What about the ongoing humanitarian crisis in North Dakota and Flint, MI?

up
0 users have voted.
Alligator Ed's picture

Abandon your souls as you enter here.

up
0 users have voted.
Lily O Lady's picture

organization. I wouldn't look to them for integrity. They also come under state governments, which are largely under the control of the GOP.

Maybe the UN could preside, but not the National Guard.

up
0 users have voted.

"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"

blazinAZ's picture

And it was the National Guard that killed the Kent State students back in the day. They are just another arm of the MIC.

I don't trust their motives or their actions.

up
0 users have voted.

There is no justice in America, but it is the fight for justice that sustains you.
--Amiri Baraka

Here's one thing he was "angry" about:

I’m angry at people who think Sanders would’ve fared better, as if Sanders’ would’ve done better at getting out the black vote in key places like North Carolina, Milwaukee, and Detroit. Or as if Sanders would’ve somehow flipped the racist-xenophobic vote.

Really Kos? Do you remember what you said in September of 2015? I'm not linking to the diary, but the title was:

Dear establishment: it'll be Hillary, or it will be Bernie, no one else

In one of his comments to that diary he said:

Great point

if Sanders wins the nomination, it's because he consolidated non-white support, and if he did that, he's fine in the general.

Then again, I'm not worried about Sanders in the general. He'd win.

And then there was this comment from Kos:

If Sanders wins, it would be because the party rank-and-file preferred him over Clinton, and that's fine! That's why we have primaries, to sort this stuff out. So if those insiders are truly worried about Hillary, then they should focus on giving that campaign a swift kick in the behind. Because it's either her or Bernie. And if those establishment cowards try to "rescue" the party from a surging Sanders, it would mean nothing short of civil war.

FThumb summed it up pretty well:

They did, and you, Kos, were right fucking there helping them "save" the party from a surging Sanders. Welcome to a civil war of your own making.

Here's something else he might be angry about:

up
0 users have voted.
bondibox's picture

Hillary fucking lost.

I love that Alexa graph showing pre-election traffic at his yearly low and falling hard. I guess all the CTR drones had gotten paid. Nice election night bump!

up
0 users have voted.

F the F'n D's

Oldest Son Of A Sailor's picture

Yea that little zit on the backside of the mountain sharply pitched downward...

Not enough of us went to congratulate these idiots on their giving us President Trump...

They are totally phuqued in the head...

up
0 users have voted.
"Do you realize the responsibility I carry?
I'm the only person standing between Richard Nixon and the White House."

~John F. Kennedy~
Economic: -9.13, Social: -7.28,
WaterLily's picture

That Alexa graph is pure gold. Made my morning.

Nice to see you, LSM. Smile

up
0 users have voted.
gendjinn's picture

Scroll down to see it, not sure why the change or what it portends. The constant downward trend is happening alongside increased visitor volatility.

DK made clear that ad revenues would no longer cut it, they tried the subscription model but it is obviously not enough as they are taking cash from the establishment Dem orgs. If that dries up can DK balance the books? Markos statements that last few weeks would suggest he's under some form of pressure. One that is apparently not relenting. Perhaps the funding has dried up.

up
0 users have voted.

Here is her "reason" for the recount - TOO MANY BLANKS IN POTUS VOTE.
http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/30/jill-stein-michigan-...

Yes, Jill, many showed their disgust by NOT VOTING for POTUS, and voting only down ballot.

Think Jill is becoming too addicted to the spotlight - her 15 minutes are over.

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

Hillary during the primaries. Looks like they've been quickly and completely co-opted.

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

without quotation marks.

Jill Stein hires DNC lawyer for Michigan recount! wtf

"And a blue shadow will fall, all over town.
Any day now... Love will let me down and you won't be around."

up
0 users have voted.
snoopydawg's picture

http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2016/11/something-is-very-evil.html
Evil is the only word to describe the atrocities that they vote to commit against innocent civilians around the world without any concerns for their lives.
Gawd, I wish that I believed in hell!

Who will bring them to justice for crimes against humanity?
The people who were, and are, the planners of this warring insanity
The Iraq war was a hellish lie about weapons of mass destruction
The invasion of that country was a planned diabolical production

A civil war now rages in that destroyed and unfortunate country
Hundreds of thousands are dead or maimed, and that puts it, bluntly
Many others are refugees from this created hell on earth
And depleted uranium contaminates innocent children at birth

Libya is another war crime dubbed “responsibility to protect”
Bombed and blitzed by NATO “allies” with great “successful” effect
That country is now in ruins, and terrorists are in control
The “victory” of “honourable” plotters, and men without a soul

Then the war criminals targeted Syria and started a civil war
They finance and arm the terrorists amongst the blood and gore
Then they blame its sovereign government for defending its own land
These hypocrites from hell: all these atrocities they planned

Yemen is another country where civilians are being slaughtered
Saudi Arabia and its coalition allies are the hellish plotters
Arms, planes, tanks and bombs supplied by America, U.K. and others
And the population cries out over the deaths of their mothers and daughters

Afghanistan is another country that never invaded us
It too is now a hell on earth with corpses in the dust
Soldiers are dead or dying that were sent to this awful war
And those who sent them cry out for more and more and more

War is a business for barbarians in expensive business suits
Corporate cannibals feed off death and destruction, are they callous brutes?
Political “warriors” voted for these wars that brought death and destruction
But, they don’t fight on the front lines, and they are missing in the action

It is no excuse for the perpetrators to say: “we were just following orders”
That excuse was thrown out at the “Nuremberg Trials,” and is a known disorder
Present day trials are needed, for those that planned these obscenities
But, who will bring them to justice for crimes against humanity?

up
0 users have voted.

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

I'm guessing that you wrote this fabulous epic poem?

I'd like to see it tattooed in full on the foreheads of all involved in/knowingly profiting from or planning to profit from all of this murderously destructive criminality, while they rot in prison.

up
0 users have voted.

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

bondibox's picture

I'm not sure what the affiliation between TrustVote and the Stein campaign is. It looks like they're trying to discourage people from donating to Jill, which is weird because TrustVote is just paying for observers.

Jill raised $3.5 million for the 2016 cycle. And she raised $7 million for the recount, so make of that what you will.

With this Maine county as a template, it looks like Jill's votes were taken. Black Box Voting released a video before the election that shows how this is easily done with the GEMS tabulator software and an "overlay" that uses GEMS routines and procedures, you can just type in "1%" for candidate X and all of that candidates vote totals will be reconfigured. ALL FOUR of the electronic voting companies donated to the Clinton Foundation.

Here's where things get vague for me. I'm on the fence whether Hillary herself actually wants a recount. What I think happened is votes were taken from Jill in order to swing the election for Hillary. That was the plan, at least. But then some "hackers" reversed the allocation of Jill's votes to Trump.

I think the recount effort is Jill trying to determine her true vote total, assisted by well-meaning Hillary supporters who think that it will flip the election for her. I don't think it will.

Lori edited her post to remove her purpose for the recount.

up
0 users have voted.

F the F'n D's

Oldest Son Of A Sailor's picture

That Hillary hacked the election and not the Russians despite all the screaming otherwise...

Might be why Hillary isn't asking for the recount...
Her supporters chipping in are just bad lawyers asking a question they don't know the answer to...

We saw in the primary what they do to cheat...
So who is the cheater in the general?

Yea sure... Putin voted twice... LOL

up
0 users have voted.
"Do you realize the responsibility I carry?
I'm the only person standing between Richard Nixon and the White House."

~John F. Kennedy~
Economic: -9.13, Social: -7.28,

shutting out state GP.

Baraka off the team?

David Cobb?

up
0 users have voted.

riverlover's picture

(is that the right descriptor??) and switch their votes to Clinton even though Trump won the state? How much $$ are they being dazzled with?

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.

up
0 users have voted.
Oldest Son Of A Sailor's picture

[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STeVTzWelns]

They have no idea how badly they are misreading the pulse of the electorate...

up
0 users have voted.
"Do you realize the responsibility I carry?
I'm the only person standing between Richard Nixon and the White House."

~John F. Kennedy~
Economic: -9.13, Social: -7.28,

where have we seen that before?

up
0 users have voted.
Oldest Son Of A Sailor's picture

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain...

up
0 users have voted.
"Do you realize the responsibility I carry?
I'm the only person standing between Richard Nixon and the White House."

~John F. Kennedy~
Economic: -9.13, Social: -7.28,

Second, there has been a great deal of smoke and mirrors and argle bargle around this--and, IMO, intentionally so.

It's not a matter of whether recounts are a good idea or whether this is good because it draws attention to the existence of election fraud in general or because it might help Jill. My issue is simply being clear and honest when you ask the public to donate money to you. Otherwise, it's obtaining money by false pretenses, which happens to be a crime.

If an honest person wants your money to help draw attention to the potential for election fraud or to become better known or whatever, he or she says that. And there may be far better ways to do that, anyway.

An honest person doesn't imply it's about the possibility of replacing Trump with Hillary as President Elect, which is what Stein did initially by the three states she chose and by not being clear from the off about her goals, reasons, expectations, etc. I have almost zero doubt that Stein raised so many millions so fast because many who donated during the first two or three days thought the recount might result in Hillary's being President. Stein threw away a lot of cred with me and others because of this.

This was my comment Saturday: http://caucus99percent.com/comment/217361#comment-217361

up
0 users have voted.
shaharazade's picture

is no longer a crime. It used to be but between the Raygun and Clinton administrations they took away all the regulations. Craveat Empror is the mode today. Fraudsters are now 'savvy businessmen and if there is no intent there is no crime.The Clinton's are nothing but fraudsters with their phony baloney charitable foundation.

Bush2 used to claim that prosecuting lying cheating pols who broke the law was criminalizing politics. Political crimes are exempt from the law or old law is interpreted to make new. They are all above the law Nixon's 'when the president does it, it's not illegal' now applies to any pol with power.The pols play fast and lose with the legal definitions of what constitutes misleading and other definitions of deceptions. These supposedly non-partisan, so called 'progressive' NGO's and Orgs. are tied to the apron strings of the bent Democratic party.

Their agenda and intentions are so murky that trust or confidence in them is foolish. TrustVote or Moveon should be called install Hillary. How absurd for Jill stein to say her motivation is to make people aware of election fraud. Who doesn't think that our electoral system is rigged by both sides? The partisan true believers from both sides always think the other did it or they say it's okay as it's just the way things are. If Steins intentions are to promote fair elections why would she be messing with the DNC who threw the primary? I personally think the Democratic Party/DNC/Clinton machine got trumped by the Republican fixer's.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/constructive-fraud/

Fraud is generally defined in the law as an intentional misrepresentation of material existing fact made by one person to another with knowledge of its falsity and for the purpose of inducing the other person to act, and upon which the other person relies with resulting injury or damage. Fraud may also by made by an omission or purposeful failure to state material facts, which nondisclosure makes other statements misleading.

Constructive fraud is considered fraud under the law although deceptive intent is missing because it has the same consequences as an actual fraud would have. It is a finding imposed in the interest of fairness and justice, such as to prevent violation of a public or private trust or confidence, the breach of a fiduciary duty, or the use of undue influence.

Black's law dictionary defines constructive fraud as "all acts, omissions, and concealments involving breach of equitable or legal duty, trust or confidence, and resulting in damage to another, 38 Cal Rptr. 148, 157; i.e. no scienter is required. Thus the party who makes the misrepresentation need not know that it is false.'"

up
0 users have voted.

Obtaining money by false pretenses has been a crime since before there was a USA (English common law, which the colonies adopted) and it still is. Yes, obtaining money by false pretenses is one specific type of criminal fraud or larceny or theft or whichever classification a state wants to put it under. However, regardless of the type of statute under which the crime of false pretenses is prosecuted, it's still a crime. Even if they call it something entirely different than obtaining money by false pretenses, the point is, relieving people of money (or something else of monetary value) by deceiving them is a criminal act.

I don't know what you are referring to with Reagan and Clinton; however, crimes are not defined by federal regulations, but by state and federal criminal statutes and criminal codes and Presidents do not typically interfere with state criminal codes or even federal criminal codes. Moreover, if a federal criminal code is to be changed, it's Congress that has to change it, although the President can certainly ask Congress to do that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_pretenses

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/false_pretenses

http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/white_collar_crimes/fals...

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/False+Pretenses

https://www.google.com/search?q=crime+of+false+pretenses&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Jill is a Massachusetts resident. This is the current relevant Massachusetts statute (Massachusetts General Laws, Title I, Chapter 266, Section 30). I googled for it after writing the above and, as it turns out, it illustrates the above perfectly. It even which uses the English spelling of "pretense" and "offense" in places:

Section 30. (1) Whoever steals, or with intent to defraud obtains by a false pretence, or whoever unlawfully, and with intent to steal or embezzle, converts, or secretes with intent to convert, the property of another as defined in this section, whether such property is or is not in his possession at the time of such conversion or secreting, shall be guilty of larceny, and shall, if the property stolen is a firearm, as defined in section one hundred and twenty-one of chapter one hundred and forty, or, if the value of the property stolen exceeds two hundred and fifty dollars, be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than five years, or by a fine of not more than twenty-five thousand dollars and imprisonment in jail for not more than two years; or, if the value of the property stolen, other than a firearm as so defined, does not exceed two hundred and fifty dollars, shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars; or, if the property was stolen from the conveyance of a common carrier or of a person carrying on an express business, shall be punished for the first offence by imprisonment for not less than six months nor more than two and one half years, or by a fine of not less than fifty nor more than six hundred dollars, or both, and for a subsequent offence, by imprisonment for not less than eighteen months nor more than two and one half years, or by a fine of not less than one hundred and fifty nor more than six hundred dollars, or both.

(2) The term ''property'', as used in the section, shall include money, personal chattels, a bank note, bond, promissory note, bill of exchange or other bill, order or certificate, a book of accounts for or concerning money or goods due or to become due or to be delivered, a deed or writing containing a conveyance of land, any valuable contract in force, a receipt, release or defeasance, a writ, process, certificate of title or duplicate certificate issued under chapter one hundred and eighty-five, a public record, anything which is of the realty or is annexed thereto, a security deposit received pursuant to section fifteen B of chapter one hundred and eighty-six, electronically processed or stored data, either tangible or intangible, data while in transit, telecommunications services, and any domesticated animal, including dogs, or a beast or bird which is ordinarily kept in confinement.

(3) The stealing of real property may be a larceny from one or more tenants, sole, joint or in common, in fee, for life or years, at will or sufferance, mortgagors or mortgagees, in possession of the same, or who may have an action of tort against the offender for trespass upon the property, but not from one having only the use or custody thereof. The larceny may be from a wife in possession, if she is authorized by law to hold such property as if sole, otherwise her occupation may be the possession of the husband. If such property which was of a person deceased is stolen, it may be a larceny from any one or more heirs, devisees, reversioners, remaindermen or others, who have a right upon such deceased to take possession, but not having entered, as it would be after entry. The larceny may be from a person whose name is unknown, if it would be such if the property stolen were personal, and may be committed by those who have only the use or custody of the property, but not by a person against whom no action of tort could be maintained for acts like those constituting the larceny.

(4) Whoever steals, or with intent to defraud obtains by a false pretense, or whoever unlawfully, and with intent to steal or embezzle, converts, secretes, unlawfully takes, carries away, conceals or copies with intent to convert any trade secret of another, regardless of value, whether such trade secret is or is not in his possession at the time of such conversion or secreting, shall be guilty of larceny, and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than five years, or by a fine of not more than twenty-five thousand dollars and imprisonment in jail for not more than two years. The term ''trade secret'' as used in this paragraph means and includes anything tangible or intangible or electronically kept or stored, which constitutes, represents, evidences or records a secret scientific, technical, merchandising, production or management information, design, process, procedure, formula, invention or improvement.

(5) Whoever steals or with intent to defraud obtains by a false pretense, or whoever unlawfully, and with intent to steal or embezzle, converts, or secretes with intent to convert, the property of another, sixty years of age or older, or of a person with a disability as defined in section thirteen K of chapter two hundred and sixty-five, whether such property is or is not in his possession at the time of such conversion or secreting, shall be guilty of larceny, and shall, if the value of the property exceeds two hundred and fifty dollars, be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than ten years or in the house of correction for not more than two and one-half years, or by a fine of not more than fifty thousand dollars or by both such fine and imprisonment; or if the value of the property does not exceed two hundred and fifty dollars, shall be punished by imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than two and one-half years or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars or by both such fine and imprisonment. The court may order, regardless of the value of the property, restitution to be paid to the victim commensurate with the value of the property.

up
0 users have voted.
ggersh's picture

a boatload of Steins votes, now that wouldn't help her heinous.

Stein might have done this all wrong but if the outcome justifies the action doesn't it benefit the country.

Another scenario to consider could be as it stands now and with everyone and their uncle saying stop the recounts (why?) her heinous has a majority of the popular, now what if and can it be a what if, she has stolen the EC, would it that much far a bridge to consider?

Now imagine the EC electing her or at least stopping trump and then finding that the recount has Stein actually winning a state or two, crazy as it might sound, has anything been sane this election.

Yep I'm on my meds! Wacko

up
0 users have voted.

I never knew that the term "Never Again" only pertained to
those born Jewish

"Antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews
now it's someone who Jews don't like"

Heard from Margaret Kimberley

philosophical debate. It usually arises in the context of extreme circumstances, as in: if the only alternative was to murder Hitler before he could implement his genocide plans, wouldn't murder be okay, though it is legally and morally wrong in most situations? I don't know of any extreme circumstances in this case.

The alternative to raising money by false pretenses is simply telling the truth. If people donate rush to paypal to donate millions to you based on the truth, that doesn't mean you are entitled to deceive them to get what you want.

If I steal your wallet and donate the money to cancer research, that still leaves you with no money and no wallet, not to mention that I am not entitled to decide how anyone else's money should be spent.

If I had donated a few thousand dollars to Stein, or even $200, because I though she was trying to get Hillary to be President, then heard her say on TV that she had zero evidence that the original count was wrong, I'd be furious. And I think I'd be very justified. Of course, I donated to try to make sure Hillary never even made it to the general, but that's beside the point.

up
0 users have voted.
ggersh's picture

and the whole circumstance of the recount is bizarre, but then again this
whole election cycle was a tool or two short of being sharply done on all
sides.

Like with hacking you know someones done it but you'll never find out who we know her heinous cheated Bernie, yet we'll never know precisely how, so it safe to assume(not found of that word) their was fraud done in the general, maybe by both sides?

When everyone TPTB are all on the same page the antennae factor comes into play, and TPTB are all on the same page in this matter.

up
0 users have voted.

I never knew that the term "Never Again" only pertained to
those born Jewish

"Antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews
now it's someone who Jews don't like"

Heard from Margaret Kimberley

up
0 users have voted.

Not that we'll ever know, but I think the DNC, Clinton, and Podesta e-mail WikiLeaks sources were all / mostly an inside job, so just because Jill Stein hired a former DNC attorney doesn't necessarily make that attorney corrupt. I'll have to do further investigating myself before I form an opinion. While imperfect (as are we all), many here have positive things to say about Tulsi Gabbard who left the DNC to support Bernie Sanders.

If I'm remotely correct, the person or persons who provided source material to WikiLeaks may well still have retained whatever position they have with the DNC because quitting in protest would make them a target such that they could end up both persecuted and prosecuted. Any leaker or leakers may not have had the motive we would like either, which is the exposure of collusion and corruption by establishment Democrats, media, hangers-on, and hangers-on adjacent, but since it has accomplished this too to some degree with nobody knowing yet to what further effect, then sometimes you have to take the gift and buy the horse a bucket of oats. I'm all about watching for outcomes and tracing histories of actions taken to see if I can trust the word of all public figures now.

I'm not looking for a hero or purity, just for people who seem to be doing the good things. Coalitions are by definition not homogeneous, but at least we can often rule out hard-core Clinton supporters as people who would have to work very hard to be trusted over time. It's always possible even such persons could eventually see the light no matter how unlikely that may be. (In other words, it's very unlikely but not impossible.)

Right now though, people who think there was hanky-panky with the general election can have all kinds of motives and are the embodiment of a mixed bag. A lot of the old secret handshakes and short-cuts for identifying an ally have flown so far out of the window that they've vanished past the horizon. This didn't happen overnight, so we are all coming to grips with this reality in our own ways and time, and it's not easy. I'm watching and hoping for some good information to come out, but I really don't know what to expect. Almost certainly, a considerable amount of the high-dollar funding is coming from Clinton supporters with or without her consent / knowledge. The bedfellows are super-strange, y'all, and they'll only get stranger as we go along I'm thinking.

up
0 users have voted.
Wink's picture

it. Was Hillary, 'bo said, that initiated this whole recount thing. I agree. Hopefully our long Clinton nightmare over.

up
0 users have voted.

the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.

this whole thing has smelled of orchestration, from Hillary postponing her concession on election night, to conceding in mourning colors, to MSNBC, Elizabeth Warren and Michael Moore encouraging demonstrations, even after some of them had turned into riots, to this recount, to talk of using the electoral college to overturn the popular vote.

http://caucus99percent.com/content/msnbcs-self-styled-liberals-sounding-...

That thread started on November 11, IIRC (too lazy to check right now). The questions all over the thread to the effect of "where is all this leading" I think is answered by attempting to overturn the popular vote of millions of Americans by rigging the electoral college and, if that doesn't work, at least saving Hillary's face to some degree. Al Gore, being a lawyer and a gentleman, went to court based on reasonable suspicion; the Clintons, being lawyers and grifters, and, as usual, not having a leg to stand on in court, went with orchestrating what might seem like helter skelter.

Cui bono? Smart line of inquiry in the day of Marcus Tullius Cicero, and still a good line of inquiry.

up
0 users have voted.

"where is all this leading" I think is answered by attempting to overturn the popular vote of millions of Americans by rigging the electoral college and, if that doesn't work, at least saving Hillary's face to some degree.

That worries me. These are not guys who just f*** around. Mark Brewer seems to be a pretty big player.
Maybe they will try to delay counts past deadliines, causing loss of electoral votes. What happens if Trump goes below 270? Maybe they will try to fix or confuse the recount. Or could be just taking Stein's money, and ruining GP credibilty. I do not worry about their motives. I don't understand why Stein is in league with them. She could have run the recount action with her own people or neutrals.

Not everyone pushing this is an idiot. I don't think Clinton camp has given up hope of just taking it.

thx.

up
0 users have voted.
ThoughtfulVoter's picture

Has the Republican win ruffled these Democratic feathers? By some counts was a landslide.

In fact, the Atlantic notes that Trump’s lead in 3,000 of the 3,100 counties was so significant it would have resulted in a landslide victory for the businessman. If the top 100 most populous counties are removed and the remaining 3,000 counties were only counted, Trump won the 3,000 counties’ popular vote by 11.5 million votes.

The distinct difference in the three candidates comes from county-level victories. Barack Obama only won 22 percent of the counties in the United States with Clinton winning only, a most, 15 percent.. Therefore, both Obama and Clinton relied heavily on the most populous counties for their votes.

Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/3748311/donald-trump-won-2600-counties-compared...

up
0 users have voted.