Recount effort hits a major snag Jill Stein’
Post# of 51863
Posted On: 11/28/2016 12:13:49 PM
Recount effort hits a major snag
Jill Stein’s crusade to obtain a recount in three states — an effort also taken up by Hillary Clinton’s supporters — just hit a major snag.
There is no absolute “right” to order a recount in Pennsylvania. In general, a person requesting a recount of votes must first present a showing of fraud, Yahoo News reported.
Oops!
The only recourse for the Green Party presidential nominee and Clinton’s supporters is to take their cause to court. Ka-ching!
The Pennsylvania Election Code provides that instead of granting candidates the absolute right to file a direct recount request, they must instead contest the count in a court proceeding. According to Pennsylvania code:
While candidates cannot file a direct request for a recount, they may appeal the order or decision of any county board regarding the computation or canvassing of the returns of any primary or election, or regarding any recount or recanvass thereof. During the appeal process, the court may determine that a recount is necessary.
And what evidence must the disgruntled candidate present to the court to be successful? Yahoo News reported:
Per Pennsylvania regulations, there is only one way remaining for Jill Stein to get a recount in Pennsylvania and it is a complicated process.
Billy Penn reports that Stein would have to file for a court appeal and present a “prima facie case” showing that voter fraud took place.
While prima facie has a lower burden of proof threshold than “beyond reasonable doubt”, it is still significant. Stein would have to prove in court that fraud was “probable.” This is going to be very difficult given that even the computer specialists recommending the recount say there is no proof of hacking or fraud.
All of this was enough to raise “concerns about [the] Pennsylvania recount” by the far-left Daily Kos.
On the issue of fraud, when the Clinton campaign joined forces in the recount effort, Clinton campaign counsel Marc Elias conceded that while there was no evidence of fraud, claimed to “have an obligation to the more than 64 million Americans who cast ballots for Hillary Clinton to participate in ongoing proceedings to ensure that an accurate vote count will be reported.”
One person suggested that the only fraud on the issue was Stein herself.
In addition, to be successful, a recount in Pennsylvania would have to overcome another huge obstacle — Trump’s large 70,638 vote margin of victory. The Pennsylvania Secretary of State‘s office reported this final tally:
Donald Trump: 2,934,583 (48.80 percent)
Hillary Clinton: 2,863,945 (47.83 percent)
Darrell Castle: 21,193 (0.35 percent)
Jill Stein: 49,170 (0.82 percent)
Gary Johnson: 144,141 (2.40 percent)
Fraud? Blind luck? According to the Pennsylvania Republican Party chairman, they had nothing to do with Trump’s victory. It was attributable to good old-fashioned hard work.
“We went right where we needed to go to win,” Rob Gleason said in an interview with radio host John Catsimatidis on Sunday, according to The Hill, and added that Clinton herself gave Trump a push.
“In the areas where Mrs. Clinton said she was going to close the coal mines, we got tremendous crowds of people … 400,000 to 500,000 Democrats voted for Trump,” he claimed.
Read more: http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/11/27/recoun...z4RJgjAKqJ
Jill Stein’s crusade to obtain a recount in three states — an effort also taken up by Hillary Clinton’s supporters — just hit a major snag.
There is no absolute “right” to order a recount in Pennsylvania. In general, a person requesting a recount of votes must first present a showing of fraud, Yahoo News reported.
Oops!
The only recourse for the Green Party presidential nominee and Clinton’s supporters is to take their cause to court. Ka-ching!
The Pennsylvania Election Code provides that instead of granting candidates the absolute right to file a direct recount request, they must instead contest the count in a court proceeding. According to Pennsylvania code:
While candidates cannot file a direct request for a recount, they may appeal the order or decision of any county board regarding the computation or canvassing of the returns of any primary or election, or regarding any recount or recanvass thereof. During the appeal process, the court may determine that a recount is necessary.
And what evidence must the disgruntled candidate present to the court to be successful? Yahoo News reported:
Per Pennsylvania regulations, there is only one way remaining for Jill Stein to get a recount in Pennsylvania and it is a complicated process.
Billy Penn reports that Stein would have to file for a court appeal and present a “prima facie case” showing that voter fraud took place.
While prima facie has a lower burden of proof threshold than “beyond reasonable doubt”, it is still significant. Stein would have to prove in court that fraud was “probable.” This is going to be very difficult given that even the computer specialists recommending the recount say there is no proof of hacking or fraud.
All of this was enough to raise “concerns about [the] Pennsylvania recount” by the far-left Daily Kos.
On the issue of fraud, when the Clinton campaign joined forces in the recount effort, Clinton campaign counsel Marc Elias conceded that while there was no evidence of fraud, claimed to “have an obligation to the more than 64 million Americans who cast ballots for Hillary Clinton to participate in ongoing proceedings to ensure that an accurate vote count will be reported.”
One person suggested that the only fraud on the issue was Stein herself.
In addition, to be successful, a recount in Pennsylvania would have to overcome another huge obstacle — Trump’s large 70,638 vote margin of victory. The Pennsylvania Secretary of State‘s office reported this final tally:
Donald Trump: 2,934,583 (48.80 percent)
Hillary Clinton: 2,863,945 (47.83 percent)
Darrell Castle: 21,193 (0.35 percent)
Jill Stein: 49,170 (0.82 percent)
Gary Johnson: 144,141 (2.40 percent)
Fraud? Blind luck? According to the Pennsylvania Republican Party chairman, they had nothing to do with Trump’s victory. It was attributable to good old-fashioned hard work.
“We went right where we needed to go to win,” Rob Gleason said in an interview with radio host John Catsimatidis on Sunday, according to The Hill, and added that Clinton herself gave Trump a push.
“In the areas where Mrs. Clinton said she was going to close the coal mines, we got tremendous crowds of people … 400,000 to 500,000 Democrats voted for Trump,” he claimed.
Read more: http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/11/27/recoun...z4RJgjAKqJ
(2)
(0)