I haven’t wasted the time of TAC readers in covering the moneymaking scheme of Jill Stein, former green party candidate, in calling for recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, due to the fact that the recounts had no hope of success, if by success altering the outcome of the election was the goal. Clinton was beaten so thoroughly in the electoral college that in order to change the outcome recounts would have to award her all three states. The smallest vote gap was in Michigan of approximately 10,000 votes, and any recount, based upon history, would barely make a dent in such a total.
Only one state did a recount, Wisconsin, and the Badger State as a result of the recount increased Trump’s vote margin of victory by 162 votes. In Michigan the state appellate court shut down the farce. In Pennsylvania Federal District Judge Paul Diamond, in a truly blistering decision, refused to order a recount:
Unsuccessful Green Party Candidate Jill Stein and Pennsylvania voter Randall Reitz allege that because Pennsylvania’s voting machines might have been “hacked” during last month’s election, I must order the Commonwealth to conduct a recount of the votes cast for President. There are at least six separate grounds requiring me to deny Plaintiffs’ Motion. Most importantly, there is no credible evidence that any “hack” occurred, and compelling evidence that Pennsylvania’s voting system was not in any way compromised. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ lack of standing, the likely absence of federal jurisdiction, and Plaintiffs’ unexplained, highly prejudicial delay in seeking a recount are all fatal to their claims for immediate relief. Further, Plaintiffs have not met any of the requirements for the issuance of a mandatory emergency injunction. Finally, granting the relief Plaintiffs seek would make it impossible for the Commonwealth to certify its Presidential Electors by December 13 (as required by federal law), thus inexcusably disenfranchising some six million Pennsylvania voters. For all these reasons, I am compelled to refuse Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief. Continue Reading