Hillary supporters… having taken a break from rioting… have gone back to scheming. Hillary herself stuck to the scheming.
It wasn’t so long ago that the Electoral College was a good thing. A FANTASTIC thing when it carried a delightful nickname that almost guaranteed Democrat wins. ‘The Blue Wall.’
Remember that ‘Blue Wall’? It was that thing Democrats had when working class people in the rust belt still thought the Democrats (1) cared about issues important to them and (2) could do something about them.
But his campaign team obviously told him ‘Mr Trump… Tear Down That Wall’. And so he spent his campaign doing just that. Even Michael Moore saw it coming. Called out SPECIFICALLY what Democrats were neglecting. And nailed it.
But now? He wants to overturn the democratic process. When Mark Bittman (former columnist for the former newspaper (New York Times)) tweeted that the Electoral College should choose Clinton, Moore tweeted:
Yes! Yes! A thousand times YES!
He got spanked pretty good for that one over twitter, you can be sure.
Hillary’s team is being more subtle. They aren’t leaving this to the Electoral College. They’re looking for recounts. They’re ONLY looking for recounts in races that Trump won. Take enough swing states, and they can ‘Al Franken’ the election.
In fact, Hillary’s lawyer said exactly that in an article on Medium.
For all these reasons, we have quietly taken a number of steps in the last two weeks to rule in or out any possibility of outside interference in the vote tally in these critical battleground states.
First, since the day after the election we have had lawyers and data scientists and analysts combing over the results to spot anomalies that would suggest a hacked result. These have included analysts both from within the campaign and outside, with backgrounds in politics, technology and academia.
Second, we have had numerous meetings and calls with various outside experts to hear their concerns and to discuss and review their data and findings. As a part of this, we have also shared out data and findings with them. Most of those discussions have remained private, while at least one has unfortunately been the subject of leaks.
Third, we have attempted to systematically catalogue and investigate every theory that has been presented to us within our ability to do so.
Fourth, we have examined the laws and practices as they pertain to recounts, contests and audits.
Fifth, and most importantly, we have monitored and staffed the post-election canvasses — where voting machine tapes are compared to poll-books, provisional ballots are resolved, and all of the math is double checked from election night. During that process, we have seen Secretary Clinton’s vote total grow, so that, today, her national popular vote lead now exceeds more than 2 million votes.
In the coming days, we will continue to perform our due diligence and actively follow all further activities that are to occur prior to the certification of any election results. For instance, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania conduct post-election audits using a sampling of precincts. Michigan and many other states still do not. This is unfortunate; it is our strong belief that, in addition to an election canvass, every state should do this basic audit to ensure accuracy and public confidence in the election.
Beyond the post-election audit, Green Party candidate Jill Stein announced Friday that she will exercise her right as a candidate to pursue a recount in the state of Wisconsin. She has indicated plans to also seek recounts in Pennsylvania and Michigan.
Because we had not uncovered any actionable evidence of hacking or outside attempts to alter the voting technology, we had not planned to exercise this option ourselves, but now that a recount has been initiated in Wisconsin, we intend to participate in order to ensure the process proceeds in a manner that is fair to all sides. If Jill Stein follows through as she has promised and pursues recounts in Pennsylvania and Michigan, we will take the same approach in those states as well.
Just one other detail to round this out. Hillary’s team did not initiate the recounts. The Green Party’ Jill Stein did.
Here’s a curious thing. In her entire ‘Presidential Bid’ she spent $3.5 Million on trying to become president. Now, in the days since the election, she has raised $5 Million for the recount… with plans to raise $7 M for the recount.
Does that seem at all curious to you? It should. How can she justify spending more money on a recount meaningless to her chances than she did on her entire campaign? Where is the money even coming from?
Could Hillary’s friends be using Jill Stein’s campaign as a shell company? If the Democrats initiated a recount, the public would cry foul. If a who cares party does, they can claim it isn’t for personal gain, but for ‘uncovering the truth’. Call us cynical here at ClashDaily, but the whole thing seems suspicious.
We have seen before how Hillary’s big money financiers actually think America’s levers of power belong to them. The whole recount debacle brings this clip to mind.
Only… it’s Hillary they want to install after their coup.
But what should we REALLY expect after what her party did to Bernie Sanders?