Federal Judge Blocks Stein Recount In Pennsylvania - Polidicks

[quote]A federal judge in Pennsylvania blocked Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein's recount bid in the state. U.S. District Judge Paul Diamond on Monday rejected a request by Stein to recount paper ballots in the state and examine voting machines in certain counties for any indication of hacking. Last week the Michigan Supreme Court refused to take up Stein's appeal of a lower court ruling over starting a recount in that state, effectively ending any chance of a recount there. Wisconsin is the only state of the three where the recount is going forward. It's expected to be completed Monday.[/quote] [url=http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/election-recount-pennsylvania-blocked-232506]Source[/url] [url=https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/jillstein/pages/27480/attachments/original/1481561252/Diamond_Memorandum_12.12.16_pdf.pdf?1481561252]From the official Memorandum[/url] [quote=Judge Paul Diamond]VII. Conclusion Dr. Stein has repeatedly stated that she has sought a Pennsylvania recount to ensure that every vote counts. Granting her later than last minute request for relief, however, could well ensure that no Pennsylvania vote counts. Such a result would be both outrageous and completely unnecessary; as I have found, suspicion of a “hacked” Pennsylvania election borders on the irrational. Finally, Plaintiffs’ claims for relief suffer from several flaws, each fatal to their Motion. For all these reasons, I will deny that Motion.[/quote]

The funny thing about rigging is that you can look for subtle signs of hacking, or obvious forms of gerrymandering/2 party voting procedures that are public information.

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51517696]Why would a news report report a court ruling and not provide the provided reasoning behind the ruling[/QUOTE] Influence. Hoping to get people to uprise without a sustainable reason why.

Strange that there was no reason provided, but the lower courts have all refused the recount as well. Not really suspicious.

From the BBC article: [QUOTE] Announcing his ruling on Monday, US District Judge Paul Diamond said: "There is no credible evidence that any 'hack' occurred, and compelling evidence that Pennsylvania's voting system was not in any way compromised."[/quote] [editline]12th December 2016[/editline] And yet, isn't the administration launching their own investigation into the feasibility of Russian influence?

[QUOTE=Alxnotorious;51517809]And yet, isn't the administration launching their own investigation into the feasibility of Russian influence?[/QUOTE] Influence is not hacking.

Sorry guys! Uploaded the official Memorandum for you to see from Stein's site. 31-page decision. [QUOTE=Alxnotorious;51517809]From the BBC article: [editline]12th December 2016[/editline] And yet, isn't the administration launching their own investigation into the feasibility of Russian influence?[/QUOTE] Yes, two individual cases. This was purely a rejection of Stein's request.

"We won't do a recount to get evidence of abuse because there's no evidence of abuse."

how could a state inhibit the electors from voting

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;51519680]EC rules, not state rules.[/QUOTE] The legal rulings say that they have a mandatory controversy settlement date of dec 13th. I don't think their vote would be ignored, rather they be asked to make a vote come election day if that date isn't met.

[QUOTE=Map in a box;51519604]"We won't do a recount to get evidence of abuse because there's no evidence of abuse."[/QUOTE] How would a recount show evidence of abuse?

[QUOTE=V12US;51519734]How would a recount show evidence of abuse?[/QUOTE] Whats the best and debatably easiest possible way to show potential manipulation? A recount. It'll account for one of the potential corruption targets.

[QUOTE=Map in a box;51519804]Whats the best and debatably easiest possible way to show potential manipulation? A recount. It'll account for one of the potential corruption targets.[/QUOTE] [url=https://www.apnews.com/322db08ce6eb49fb910d5a84de3cccb8/US-judge-rejects-Green-Party's-Pennsylvania-recount-case]Wisconsin recount is complete.[/url] Searched a few different sources, didn't say anything about any discovered manipulation there.

[QUOTE=Map in a box;51519804]Whats the best and debatably easiest possible way to show potential manipulation? A recount. It'll account for one of the potential corruption targets.[/QUOTE] How? Do votes have names on them to double check? other than that, there's nothing a recount could "prove" that the preliminary results wouldn't show.

[QUOTE=Water-Marine;51519846][url=https://www.apnews.com/322db08ce6eb49fb910d5a84de3cccb8/US-judge-rejects-Green-Party's-Pennsylvania-recount-case]Wisconsin recount is complete.[/url] Searched a few different sources, didn't say anything about any discovered manipulation there.[/QUOTE] Well that means in Pennsylvania, there likely wasn't manipulation with the counters.

What's so controversial about recounting once or twice... At worst we actually find evidence of manipulation or fraud, at best confidence in our democracy is reaffirmed. Of course, we don't want abuse so limiting the amount of times a recount takes place is something the courts could decide.

[QUOTE=shadow_oap;51520584]What's so controversial about recounting once or twice... At worst we actually find evidence of manipulation or fraud, at best confidence in our democracy is reaffirmed. Of course, we don't want abuse so limiting the amount of times a recount takes place is something the courts could decide.[/QUOTE] It's not like our vote has our information on it. A recount would tell you nothing about manipulation or fraud than the original count did.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51520603]It's not like our vote has our information on it. A recount would tell you nothing about manipulation or fraud than the original count did.[/QUOTE] Well, it would if there was a [b]massive[/b] change in votes after recount. Hasn't happened yet, but still. [QUOTE=shadow_oap;51520584]What's so controversial about recounting once or twice... At worst we actually find evidence of manipulation or fraud, at best confidence in our democracy is reaffirmed. Of course, we don't want abuse so limiting the amount of times a recount takes place is something the courts could decide.[/QUOTE] A lot of people worried that if Jill Stein was unable to foot the entire bill of her recount requests, it would be passed on to taxpayers. And from what I've seen, it isn't exactly cheap, nor is there an accurate depiction of said costs. There were situations in Michigan(I believe?) where the speculated cost continued to rise throughout the dispute. I think she's been able to fund everything so far though.

it would be hilarious if they let the recount go through and found that trump had more votes again. even though it's a small amount, how you miscount over a hundred votes is beyond me. who the fuck is running this shit? i don't want to put on my tinfoil hat and claim the dnc installed plants at the counting stations, but i'm sure someone will.

[QUOTE=Water-Marine;51520691]Well, it would if there was a [b]massive[/b] change in votes after recount. Hasn't happened yet, but still.[/QUOTE] The original outcomes would have to be HEAVILY skewed for a massive change, something that would have been noticeably different from the norm, and also a legitimate basis for a recount in Pennsylvania.

[QUOTE=Map in a box;51519804]Whats the best and debatably easiest possible way to show potential manipulation? A recount. It'll account for one of the potential corruption targets.[/QUOTE] What could a recount show that will demonstrate manipulation? You need some other evidence first, such as a voting machine that was tampered with, a virus on a computer, or something tangible.