Green Party candidate Jill Stein launched legal actions to require voter recounts in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan. Although Stein only received about 1% of the popular vote and no chance of winning any state via a recount, she claimed her only motive was to insure voting integrity and that there wasn’t any voter fraud or hacking that swayed the elections. She also claimed it had nothing to do with her wanting Hillary Clinton to win over Donald Trump.
Personally, I welcome the recount since all three states would have to overturn their results for Clinton to win. It would also settle the matter in many minds of whether or not the election was tampered with.
However, if voting integrity was the ONLY reason Stein had for filing for recounts, then why didn’t she select any of the states where Hillary Clinton won by a narrow margin? Trump won by narrow margins in 3 states but Clinton won by narrow margins in 4 states, so why not want recounts in those states?
I would even welcome Trump supporters filing for a recount in Minnesota where Clinton defeated Trump by only 43,785 votes. Minnesota holds 10 Electoral Votes, the same as Wisconsin. What about a recount in New Hampshire where Clinton won by only 2,732 votes? Even though New Hampshire only holds 4 Electoral Votes, if the issue is vote integrity, then why not ask for a recount? Why not a recount in Nevada where Clinton won by only 26 434 a narrower margin than Trump won by in Pennsylvania or Wisconsin. Nevada holds another 6 Electoral Votes. Let’s not forget Maine where Clinton won by only 20,035 votes? Why not recount Colorado where Clinton won by only 71,741 votes?
In Michigan, the voter recount began. Then the Michigan Court of Appeals upheld a challenge to the recount, voting 3-0 deciding that since Stein had received only 1% of the vote and therefore had no chance of winning, that there was no need of a recount.
That decision was then challenged and ended up before US District Judge Mark Goldsmith who this week upheld the Court of Appeals ruling to suspend the recount. In supporting the lower courts claim that there were no real grounds for the Green Party recount, Goldsmith added that so far in the recount process there was no evidence of evidence of hacking or voter fraud.
But is that the real reason behind Goldsmith’s decision? I question his motive and contend that it is more politically motivated and not necessarily legally motivated.
Goldsmith’s decision came two days after the recount had started. In that two days, multiple discrepancies were found between voting totals and precinct reports. Coincidence or not, the largest discrepancies occurred in Wayne County, which is the home of Detroit. In Wayne county, Clinton won 66% of the votes to Trump’s 29%, but is that accurate?
According to the Detroit Free Press:
“One-third of precincts in Wayne County could be disqualified from an unprecedented statewide recount of presidential election results because of problems with ballots.”
“Michigan’s largest county voted overwhelmingly for Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, but officials couldn’t reconcile vote totals for 610 of 1,680 precincts during a countywide canvass of vote results late last month.”
“Most of those are in heavily Democratic Detroit, where the number of ballots in precinct poll books did not match those of voting machine printout reports in 59 percent of precincts, 392 of 662”
According to a report from WND:
“And one person reports single ballots being counted as many as six times.”
This would not be the first time in recent history where Democratic voting integrity would be in question. In the 2012 election, Barack Obama miraculously received 100% of the votes in 149 Cleveland precincts. Mitt Romney received fewer than 10 votes. Statistically this is extremely rare and many experts suggest that this represents some sort of voter fraud. There were also numerous reports of voting machines changing a person’s vote for Mitt Romney to Barack Obama. In Cincinnati, one poll worker, who just happened to be a black Democrat, was caught voting multiple times including once for a dead relative.
Do you think Judge Goldsmith’s decision to stop the recount, once evidence of Democratic voter fraud was uncovered, had anything to do with the fact that he is a liberal Democrat appointed to the bench by none other than Barack Obama?
I can’t help but ask the question if the reason US District Judge Mark Goldsmith stopped the recount was to prevent further evidence of Democratic voter fraud from being discovered and reported to the media?