Michigan Recount to proceed

Despite there being no provision in Michigan law for a recount based on “just because I want one”, a Federal Judge has ordered a HAND recount to happen starting on Monday. And on December 12th, Ms Stein will demand a recount of the recount.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2016/12/04/judge-holds-sunday-hearing-michigan-recount-suit/94952646/

This entry was posted in 2016 election, American Politics, Trump 2017. Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to Michigan Recount to proceed

  1. briand75 says:

    I had heard this was the attempt to lock out enough electors (because states in a recount can’t have electors vote) to nullify any mandate for Trump’s policies and also to delegitimize his election. I believe this is one of many attempts to destroy any sense of procedure and law with respect to the election process by the left. If this election goes to the Congress, Trump still wins, but the cry becomes “selected not elected” and so forth.

    • Fred Stiening says:

      Exactly correct. Here is how it might work out. One elector in one state with appropriate permission votes for person “x”… right now there are only two candidates entitled to electors to fill the “top three”. So we might wind up with Trump 259, Hillary 234, and person “x” with 1 vote, qualifying them for the top three.

      The Republicans will control the vote on January 6th. Enough states vote for “x” on the first try that Trump does not get 26 States. The stock market implodes. Either the establishment lines up behind “x” or they just let Trump fume and Pence takes office on January 20th. The senate picks from the top two, so Pence is the only option for VP and acting President. My money is on that outcome.

  2. Fred Stiening says:

    A recount is also being done in Nevada where Hillary won. The county breakdown is stark. Trump clobbered Hillary in almost all of the state except Reno and Las Vegas. Shockingly, the watermelon Jill Stein (green on the outside, red on the inside) did not ask for a recount there. With a 27,000 vote margin, there is little chance Trump will,prevail in NV

  3. TheChairman says:

    This ‘judge’ was brought to us by Sens. Levin and Stabenow, and appointed by Obama.

    I was not happy when Team Trump was slow out of the gate to oppose this game, they didn’t seem to grasp the urgency of confronting the enemy — an enemy who will ‘do whatever it takes’ — and trying to do what Al Franken got away with in Minnesota.

    Meanwhile, not a peep from Clinton, hunkered down in her ‘War room’ pentagram… with the MSM conspicuously aloof while silently reciting incantations with Hillary.

    • Fred Stiening says:

      I suspect Romney going to Trump Tower was not about Secretary of State, but rather as the representative of the #nevertrump movement explaining to Trump what he has to look forward to. Al Gore visited Trump today. Priebus announced that Mexican wall won’t literally be a Wall. Repeal and Replace Obamacare is starting to morph. I expect before this is over, Chuck Schumer will be the leader of the Senate. If you want to build a skyscraper in New York, you learn you can’t fight the mob

      • TheChairman says:

        A few hours ago we received an email from the Michigan GOP, asking for volunteers to help monitor the recount… problem is, we are already in Arizona. Below is the email text:

        “We need your help! We cannot have Election Boards counting without Trump-Pence supporters observing. Please sign up at migop.org/recount

        You will receive training and be assigned to a recount location.

        Please forward this email to everyone you can. President-elect Donald Trump and millions of Americans are counting on us.

        We cannot let them down.

        Please go to migop.org/recount and sign up to volunteer NOW!

        Team Trump Michigan”

        • Fred Stiening says:

          One city in Wisconsin already set a precedent – I do not think it was an accident. The city had a total of 19 votes on Election Day. For the recount, they realized there were 30 absentee ballots they had not counted, all 30 for Trump

  4. Fred Stiening says:

    The New York Times is leading the revolt to get electors to not vote for Trump

    Christopher Suprun Of Texas says he will not vote for Trump, but would like other electors to conspire and vote for someone like Kasich

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/opinion/why-i-will-not-cast-my-electoral-vote-for-donald-trump.html

  5. Fred Stiening says:

    Gee, in half of the precincts in Detroit, the number of ballots issued is different than the number voted. Color me shocked!

    http://heavy.com/news/2016/12/michigan-recount-results-day-1-update-missing-ballots-margin-laws-totals-detroit-ruling-update-wayne-county-rules/

    • TheChairman says:

      The flaw in the law is that it allows the original precinct tally to stand, so finding irregularities actually favors the cheaters… no audit… more Michigan idiocy.

      • Fred Stiening says:

        I had the same reaction… let’s say there is a precinct where 500 people signed in, but the voting machine counted 50 votes for Trump and 900 for Hillary. By being not balanced, the original count stands, when the imbalance is the evidence of fraud

  6. Fred Stiening says:

    Michigan recount spreadsheets

    http://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,4670,7-127-1633_78557-398763–,00.html

    They aren’t very useful yet – they have the original vote counts by precinct, but no recount votes.

    I don’t understand how Michigan certified the results without reconciling the ballot counts in the month since the election. I would like to know the differences – is it one ballot in a precinct or 500?

  7. Fred Stiening says:

    There are a few dozen ballots where the optical readers did not read a mark but the recounters agree there is a mark. There is no reason to think the voters for one candidate are more likely to not fill in the dot fully. So the “no vote” number may go down, but the margin between Trump and Hillary should not change much.

  8. Fred Stiening says:

    State Court has ordered the recount stopped, Federal Court says to keep counting. State election officials meeting to decide what to do.

    http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2016/12/07/board-canvassers-meet-michigan-presidential-recount/95084374/

    I hope disciplinary proceeding start against the Federal judge

  9. TheChairman says:

    Vote certification in Michigan is a form of voodoo… it is practiced mainly in Wayne, Washtenaw, and Ingham counties. Usually, it involves going into a trance for days or weeks at a time when any candidate with an ‘R’ appears (as an apparition) on a ballot.

    As we touched on, the manner in which Michigan handles precinct irregularities is bizarre… and the fact that neither Stein nor the federal judge are addressing this recount rule as precisely the issue at hand, speaks volumes about her charade and his judicial activism. Stein and her lawyers should be sued for legal abuse (frivolous and vexatious litigation), the federal judge should be pursued for judicial misconduct.

    IMO, Michigan could do one of two things: continue the recount, but -only- recount Stein’s votes (the judge’s order never specified other candidates, so just recount hers). The other option would be to stop the recount and obey Michigan law… because if they follow the federal judge, it will create a precedent for more interference (e.g. in PA).

    I would also hope PA would tell any federal judge to pound sand… contempt indeed!

    • Fred Stiening says:

      So the Lansing paper reports Ingham county is complete – Hillary got a net +65 votes out of 135,000 (+73 Trump +138 Hillary)

      The original total was Trump 43,854 Hillary 79,021

      If you assume the new votes are not different than the population as a whole, +73 Trump votes would be expected to match +119 for Hillary

      So the actual difference for the recount is +19 out of 135,000. If we extrapolate that to the entire vote we get +779 for Hillary (19 * (5.5 million / 135,000))

      If there is bias slipping in to the process, Grand Rapids might overcount the opposite direction.

      Regarding Wayne County, the news people are fabricating an explanation. If the machine jams and still double counts the ballot, what would prevent the ballot from being fed through twice without a jam? Is the machine captured in a sealed container? How do they clear the ballot in a jam? (Investigating)

  10. Fred Stiening says:

    The Federal judge has backed off

    “The issues that plaintiffs raise are serious indeed,” Judge Goldsmith said. “The vulnerability of our system of voting poses the threat of a potentially devastating attack on the integrity of our election system. But invoking a court’s aid to remedy that problem in the manner plaintiffs have chosen — seeking a recount as an audit of the election to test whether the vulnerability led to actual compromise of the voting system — has never been endorsed by any court and would require, at a minimum, evidence of significant fraud or mistake — and not speculative fear of them. Such evidence has not been presented here.”

    Given the opposition by the Michigan Attorney General and the ruling by the state appeals court, that should end it. Maybe Michigan can focus instead on why half of the precincts in Detroit didn’t follow the procedures correctly.

    • TheChairman says:

      The judge contradicted himself… sounds like his CYA ‘walk-it-back’ moment.

      He acknowledged the ‘legal standing’ issue raised by Michigan. Why did he not consider that at midnight Sunday? He also claimed his order was to ‘get the recount moving’ which again, is judicial over-reach by his own admission.

      My hunch: someone realized that drawing attention to the ‘no recount rule’ in Michigan might actually expose the level of chicanery in Detroit, and the judge got his marching orders. A perusal of news blogs revealed that most people did not understand the rule (failure to read and/or comprehend the words)… of course, most lib bloggers were convinced the ‘no recount’ precincts were thrown out -entirely- and “democrats were disenfranchised.” More methane.

      • Fred Stiening says:

        A little piece of Michigan legal history. At least when I lived there (1982-1997), the state legislature was solidly under the thumb of two special interest groups – teachers and insurance companies (AAA auto). Nothing made it through the legislature unless the City of Detroit signed on.

        The City of Detroit population maxed around 1.8 million. Detroit wanted all kinds of special laws and benefits for only Detroit, but the law generally frowns on states creating laws that treat different cities differently. The workaround was laws were crafted that said “any city with a population of 1 million or more” may do “x”. Never in their wildest dreams did they imagine someday the population of Detroit would fall down to 800,000, invalidating all those laws.

Leave a Reply