"What I Saw at the Michigan Recount": Trump's Lawyers Deliberately Stall Efforts
26 replies, posted
[URL="https://medium.com/@nick_sharp/what-i-saw-at-the-michigan-recount-7c46fdc87243"]Medium
[/URL]
[QUOTE]On December 7, 2016, I volunteered as an observer with Recount Michigan 2016. I showed up at 9:00am sharp in the heart of Detroit, in heavily democratic Wayne County, Michigan.
It was a bloodbath.
I did not count a single vote during my entire first four-hour shift.
Trump’s legal team was there in force, circling the room like sharks. They were challenging everything, gumming up the works and disqualifying whole precincts. I was only aware of a single Green Party attorney plus one law student in my (large) room. Many challenges had one or more Trump lawyers speaking with election officials, and no legal advocate present for the other side; they were simply outnumbered and outgunned.
[/QUOTE]
There's something going on behind the scenes. Some REALLY shady shit.
Why are Trump's lawyers so insistent on a recount not happening efficiently I wonder. I thought in Wisconsin his vote margin increased, its hardly likely that he'd lose the state of Michigan either.
This whole thing is getting super fucking weird.
Not a credible source.
Interesting to hear, though.
Interesting to consider that the Republicans could have an idea about something unscrupulous having occurred on Trump's behalf. I'm not convinced that the recount would have necessarily yielded anything anyway - Hillary was a terrible candidate. This is an anecdote from someone I've never heard of, so it's hard to decide if it has any real merit. Perhaps someone else will comment who was involved in the process.
(Edit: Readers should check the comments, there's some more anecdotes from others involved. Some have photos.)
But if the Republican Party knew something, why wouldn't they do everything in their power to keep their candidate viable. If Trump lost, imagine how the next senate race would go. I'm increasingly anxious about the 19th coming.
This is a blog entry, not a credible source.
[QUOTE=Tasm;51519984]This is a blog entry, not a credible source.[/QUOTE]
So we want to wait for a news article to come out that basically uses this as their source?
[QUOTE=Map in a box;51520154]So we want to wait for a news article to come out that basically uses this as their source?[/QUOTE]
You want to wait for a reputable news site who actually vets this story to ensure it holds water vs. it being some guy's blog post.
[QUOTE=Tasm;51519984]This is a blog entry, not a credible source.[/QUOTE]
I agree to an extent, but I also feel like this blog post/anecdote (first person account) is more valuable or credible than a typical opinion piece.
[QUOTE=Biotoxsin;51520171]I agree to an extent, but I also feel like this blog post/anecdote (first person account) is more valuable or credible than a typical opinion piece.[/QUOTE]
For what reason? Because it plays to your preconceived notions?
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51520177]For what reason? Because it plays to your preconceived notions?[/QUOTE]
Obviously we should be skeptical looking at it (as with all news), but there's other anecdotes in the comments including several with pictures. He's not saying that there's some big conspiracy, he's suggesting that there are red flags. I.e. lots of lawyers and oversight/involvement from Trump and the party
Interpretation here could yield a couple different conclusions. If you want to give a pro-Trump spin, you could infer that Trump is concerned that the left could pull something unscrupulous during the recount.
I'm not sure what benefit this person would have in lying.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;51520191]I'm not sure what benefit this person would have in lying.[/QUOTE]
I doubt he is, but I would posit that if there were nothing to be uncovered, Trump could be doing this to protect his candidacy from a narrative that the left is building.
We can all agree that Hillary's only real shot is persuading the Electoral College that Trump is unfit for office. Pushing opinion pieces and convincing the public that something is afoot is one way to accomplish this.
[QUOTE=Biotoxsin;51520185]Obviously we should be skeptical looking at it (as with all news), but there's other anecdotes in the comments including several with pictures. He's not saying that there's some big conspiracy, he's suggesting that there are red flags. I.e. lots of lawyers and oversight/involvement from Trump and the party
Interpretation here could yield a couple different conclusions. If you want to give a pro-Trump spin, you could infer that Trump is concerned that the left could pull something unscrupulous during the recount.[/QUOTE]
Don't get me wrong here, I'm not completely saying it didn't happen. But real news sources will vet it, then look into what actually happened to see if it's really newsworthy. For all we know, it could be normal, and Stien didn't come properly prepared to the recount. But we don't know any of this.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51520230]Don't get me wrong here, I'm not completely saying it didn't happen. But real news sources will vet it, then look into what actually happened to see if it's really newsworthy. For all we know, it could be normal, and Stien didn't come properly prepared to the recount. But we don't know any of this.[/QUOTE]
No, They probably most likely won't. It's not worth the air-time. Trump is a punching bag, but he's backed by the media.
[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;51520277]No, They probably most likely won't. It's not worth the air-time. Trump is a punching bag, [b]but he's backed by the media.[/b][/QUOTE]
...Trump's backed by the media? Fucking what?
[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;51520277]No, They probably most likely won't. It's not worth the air-time. Trump is a punching bag, but he's backed by the media.[/QUOTE]
Is trump really backed by the media? So far since the electionit's been nothing but nonstop calling him out on his shitty appointments, decisions and foreign relations. If he is backed by the media now, at what point did it this shift occur from just a punching bag to a punching bag backed by the media.
[QUOTE=Mattk50;51520304]Is trump really backed by the media? So far since the electionit's been nothing but nonstop calling him out on his shitty appointments, decisions and foreign relations. If he is backed by the media now, at what point did it this shift occur from just a punching bag to a punching bag backed by the media.[/QUOTE]
Think- Without the consistent coverage of THOUSANDS of media outlets, trump would have lost both the RNC and the presidency. They can say one thing but they do another. giving him coverage, any coverage at all is a form of support. if they didn't support him we wouldn't see him. if they did support him then we won't see this become a problem. These multi-billion dollar conglomerates would more than likely want to see anything but trump fail, even if they blast and gallabant him as an idiot or parade him like a fool they're still giving him air.
Media supports trump, even if it seems otherwise. They create context, and they give context to him, to his voter base. It's why this won't be picked up.
[QUOTE=Mattk50;51520304]Is trump really backed by the media? So far since the electionit's been nothing but nonstop calling him out on his shitty appointments, decisions and foreign relations. If he is backed by the media now, at what point did it this shift occur from just a punching bag to a punching bag backed by the media.[/QUOTE]
not nescisarily that he's backed by the media but they refuse to press him on anything because he threatens to not make any more appearances, like his recent fox interview when they pushed him on his rediculous enviromental beliefs, they got him to admit he's in a logical paradox but they didn't press him about the meetings he had or the scientific community he is now in charge of, or his witchhunt at the DoE or his extremely pro-fossil fuel cabinet, no they let him off.
same thing happened throughout the election, global warming disappeared completely and nobody in the 20+ hours of the debates ever brought it up even as its a massive issue according to many research groups
also now there's some pretty strong testimonies from people behind the scenes at networks that have said they had to basically feed him the interviews ahead of time for him to agree to show up.
Lol you all think the media is biased for trump? they were slandering trump for god's sake. If anything it was biased in Hillary's favour.
There's just a lot of dumbass Americans that voted for him even though the media was constantly running him down.
[QUOTE=Sableye;51520554]also now there's some pretty strong testimonies from people behind the scenes at networks that have said they had to basically feed him the interviews ahead of time for him to agree to show up.[/QUOTE]
Playing devil's advocate here, but yeah, if every news site believed you were the next incarnation of Hitler, you'd probably want to know what their interviews were about too.
[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;51520446]Think- Without the consistent coverage of THOUSANDS of media outlets, trump would have lost both the RNC and the presidency. They can say one thing but they do another. giving him coverage, any coverage at all is a form of support. if they didn't support him we wouldn't see him. if they did support him then we won't see this become a problem. These multi-billion dollar conglomerates would more than likely want to see anything but trump fail, even if they blast and gallabant him as an idiot or parade him like a fool they're still giving him air.
Media supports trump, even if it seems otherwise. They create context, and they give context to him, to his voter base. It's why this won't be picked up.[/QUOTE]
didn't you read the leaked dnc emails? they purposely gave trump more air time to make him seem more bat shit and ludicrous. cnn's head even admitted to giving him too much time and playing too many of his speeches unedited.
maybe fox news was on his side, but they were more pro-republican than pro-trump, seeing as how pretty much everyone denounced him after the pussy tape.
[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;51520446]Think- Without the consistent coverage of THOUSANDS of media outlets, trump would have lost both the RNC and the presidency. They can say one thing but they do another. giving him coverage, any coverage at all is a form of support. if they didn't support him we wouldn't see him. if they did support him then we won't see this become a problem. These multi-billion dollar conglomerates would more than likely want to see anything but trump fail, even if they blast and gallabant him as an idiot or parade him like a fool they're still giving him air.
Media supports trump, even if it seems otherwise. They create context, and they give context to him, to his voter base. It's why this won't be picked up.[/QUOTE]
They covered more of Trump because people would tune in and watch outlandish Trump shit ten times more than another dry Hillary Clinton speech. Trump was newsworthy whether you like it or not, and it made perfect sense that they gave him lots of coverage. If they didn't give him any coverage, they would be clearly and obviously biased towards Clinton.
They care about money a lot more than politics. I really don't think there's some hidden agenda here.
[QUOTE=Sableye;51520554]
also now there's some pretty strong testimonies from people behind the scenes at networks that have said they had to basically feed him the interviews ahead of time for him to agree to show up.[/QUOTE]
All I ever heard of that was from Megyn Kelly's new book and I doubt Hillary Clinton doesn't get the same advance treatment.
[QUOTE=Pops;51520726]cnn's head even admitted to giving him too much time and playing too many of his speeches unedited.[/QUOTE]
I find it terrifying that such a quote comes from the head of a major news media.
We didn't edit it enough. We didn't spin it enough.
Come the fuck on. You're a news network. Not a PR department.
[QUOTE=Pops;51520726]cnn's head even admitted to giving him too much time [B]and playing too many of his speeches unedited[/B].[/QUOTE]
Source?
[QUOTE=Pops;51520726]didn't you read the leaked dnc emails? they purposely gave trump more air time to make him seem more bat shit and ludicrous. cnn's head even admitted to giving him too much time and playing too many of his speeches unedited.
maybe fox news was on his side, but they were more pro-republican than pro-trump, seeing as how pretty much everyone denounced him after the pussy tape.[/QUOTE]
The most infuriating part about this is that the Democratic establishment lambasted Bernie supporters for being unrealistic or uncooperative, as there was too much at stake. They helped Trump get the nomination. They helped forment the reactionary bullshit. If they really gave a shit about any of the risks involved beyond their party losing political power they wouldn't have ever taken the risk in helping Trump get the nomination, especially not as a special favor for their party darling.
[QUOTE=V12US;51521486]I find it terrifying that such a quote comes from the head of a major news media.
We didn't edit it enough. We didn't spin it enough.
Come the fuck on. You're a news network. Not a PR department.[/QUOTE]
Edited for time, not for spin. He's talking about pulling in the major talking points and cutting out extraneous banter and tangents. By showing full speeches, or long sections of full pieces, they were simply giving Trump more screen time to persuade voters than they would have otherwise done.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51521863]Source?[/QUOTE]
He actually did say that pretty much straight up.
[url]http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/10/jeff-zucker-cnn-no-regrets-229820[/url]
[QUOTE]"We probably did put on too many of the campaign rallies in the early months unedited," Zucker said. "In hindsight we probably shouldn’t have done that as much."[/QUOTE]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.