Last week, Special Counsel Robert Mueller made the shocking claim that several Russian operatives helped Green Party candidate Jill Stein&#8217;s campaign gain traction online in an effort to send the 2016 American presidential election swirling into chaos &#8212; and Jill Stein isn&#8217;t a fan of media bringing it up.
The revelations aren&#8217;t much of a shock, particularly considering that Stein spent time in Russia during her bid to become the nation&#8217;s first Green Party president, and was even, at one point, pictured at a gala, seated with Russian President Vladimir Putin and disgraced Trump transition team member, former Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn, who is facing his own indictment.
But Jill Stein still wasn&#8217;t happy when, over the weekend, an MSNBC anchor broached the subject of Russian help.
WATCH:
<iframe loading="lazy" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/EmsXymdjjNg" width="560"></iframe>
Stein doesn&#8217;t seem too worried about the help she received from a foreign entity hellbent on illegally meddling in an American election. She&#8217;s more concerned with how much airtime MSNBC &#8212; a network that does not, in fact, support President Donald Trump &#8212; gave to Trump during the election, as compared to how much it gave her, a third-tier candidate who barely registered in the popular vote count.
&#8220;Let me say we were aware of other kinds of interference,&#8221; Stein shot at the anchor. &#8220;For example, we know that $6 billion in free airtime was given to Donald Trump by the big networks. Six billion, this was twice as much as Hillary Clinton&#8217;s campaign and four times as much as Bernie Sanders&#8217; campaign and way more than the independent candidates,
Not content to simply blame the media for her poor performance &#8212; and not, say,<a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jill-steins-dangerous-anti-science-campaign_us_57a92f2ce4b02251db3ff3a8"> her thoughts on vaccines</a> &#8212; Stein then blamed Hillary Clinton, claiming that she and her pals had &#8220;rigged&#8221; the Democratic primary so that neither she nor Bernie Sanders had a shot at winning.
&#8220;The point I am making here, Alex, is we don&#8217;t want to miss the forest here through the trees. Yes, there was Russia interference but there was compelling interference going on by way of media and the DNC. Did the DNC did not rig the primaries?&#8221; Stein snapped.
When the anchor pointed out that it&#8217;s possible Stein could have, even unintentionally, helped the Russians in their quest to control American elections because, after all, Stein was the only presidential candidate to sit down with, and have a direct line to, Russian officials, Stein attacked the news media again.
&#8220;Well, they did not assist me in any way,&#8221; Stein, who was agitated almost to the point of a nervous breakdown, screamed. &#8220;There was an effort being made to try to degrade my campaign, that was what was going on here. You had two political parties that are scared of their opposition because they saw a revolt.&#8221;
Few people were worried about a revolt led by Jill Stein, of course, but don&#8217;t tell her that.

WATCH: Jill Stein Loses Control Over Allegations That Russians Helped Her Campaign

Jill Stein

Russia

The lunatic Left never ceases to amaze us. On Sunday, former Green party presidential candidate and <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/16/politics/jill-stein-vaccine-gmo-science/index.html">anti-vaccine medical doctor</a> Jill Stein appeared on MSNBC to defend both North Korea and Russia. Yes, seriously.
Espousing recycled far-left conspiracy theories, Stein argued that the United States is looking to &#8220;demonize&#8221; the brutal dictatorship of Kim Jong Un in order to pursue a policy of regime change. 
&#8220;The demonization of North Korea is part of the run-up to regime change,&#8221; she <a href="http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jill-stein-slams-demonization-of-north-korea-in-bizarre-msnbc-interview/">blabbered</a>.&#8221; &#8220;It&#8217;s part of demonizing a government that we then want to exercise regime change on.&#8221;
Stein continued, plunging herself deeper and deeper down the rabbit&#8217;s hole of ignorance:
<blockquote>
But remember where that came from. &#8230; Long before they began their missile tests, the U.S. was conducting nuclear bombing runs against North Korea. We actually had nuclear weapons until the end of the Cold War. We actually had nuclear weapons stationed in South Korea.
</blockquote>
Doubling-down on paranoid &#8220;blame the West&#8221; pseudo-intellectual, post-colonial theory, Stein actually suggested that America is actually to blame for the North Korean regime&#8217;s missile testing, nuclear threats, and provocations.
&#8220;So, this is very frightening to them,&#8221; the far-left nut job said, referring to North Korea&#8217;s supposed fear brought upon by the big-bad U.S. hegemonic superstructure. &#8220;They have been basically cornered into feeling like they have to develop a nuclear weapon.&#8221;
Oh, yes, the classic &#8216;let&#8217;s casually develop nuclear weapons because we&#8217;re scared of those evil Americans&#8217; song and dance.
Unfortunately, Stein&#8217;s rant didn&#8217;t end there.
The former Green party candidate went on to defend Russia in the wake of overwhelming Congressional support for a new U.S. sanctions bill.
&#8220;Sanctions basically play into Russia&#8217;s hand. We know that sanctions only strengthen a leader like Putin and make him the protector against the evil United States,&#8221; she said.
Stein&#8217;s position on Russia shouldn&#8217;t be surprising given her frequent appearances on Russian state propaganda network RT.
Watch as Stein goes out of her way to defend some of the world&#8217;s worst tyrants:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
WATCH: <a href="https://twitter.com/DrJillStein">@DrJillStein</a>: North Korea has been demonized by US, forced to attain Nukes. Russian interference based on circumstantial evidence <a href="https://t.co/S3BMtodjuf">pic.twitter.com/S3BMtodjuf</a>
&#8212; Yashar Ali (@yashar) <a href="https://twitter.com/yashar/status/892035780037812224">July 31, 2017</a></blockquote>
Stein&#8217;s general viewpoint is not uncommon, at least among left-wing activist types. The sad truth is, Jill Stein wannabes are a dime a dozen on college campuses these days.

WATCH: Jill Stein Defends North Korea. Seriously.

Green Party

North Korea

Vladimir Putin

The Democrats are currently portraying themselves as the anti-Kremlin party as a political bludgeon against President Donald Trump. However, the Democrats are conveniently ignoring the left&#8217;s ties to Russia.
The Daily Caller <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/02/exclusive-the-american-lefts-love-affair-with-putins-russian-tv/">reports</a> that the following leftists work as hosts for RT, the state-run Kremlin propaganda network where they spew their left-wing views:
<ul>
<li>Ed Schultz, formerly of MSNBC</li>
<li>Sean Stone, the far-left Oliver Stone&#8217;s son</li>
<li>Thom Hartmann, leftist talk show host</li>
<li>Chris Hedges, New York Times reporter</li>
<li>Max Keiser, Huffington Post writer</li>
<li>Larry King</li>
</ul>
The Daily Caller also points out that RT sponsored a December event that featured Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein and the vile anti-Israel Max Blumenthal, the son of Hillary Clinton&#8217;s confidant Sidney Blumenthal. Both Stein and Max Blumenthal praised the Kremlin and RT.
Additionally, the report notes that both The New York Times and The Washington Post – two news outlets that have consistently churned out stories about the Trump administration&#8217;s ties to Russia – receive &#8220;advertising dollars from Russia, and they run inserts which to the average reader could be confused as editorial content or of content those papers support,&#8221; according to John Dickey of ORA TV, a network that partners with RT.
It shouldn&#8217;t come as a surprise that these leftists work for a Kremlin propaganda network; the dirty little secret is that there was once a time where the left didn&#8217;t seem to have a problem with the Russians.
Remember when President Barack Obama <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/obama-to-russia-after-my-election-i-have-more-flexibility/article/634473">promised</a> then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, &#8220;After my election I have more flexibility&#8221;? Or when <a href="http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/25/5-times-liberals-mocked-mitt-romney-for-warning-about-russia/">Mitt Romney&#8217;s prescient warnings about Russia</a> were mocked by Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Kerry and MSNBC hosts Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow?
Additionally, <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/10047/wikileaks-hillary-doesnt-view-russia-and-north-aaron-bandler">transcripts</a> of Hillary Clinton&#8217;s 2013 speeches revealed by WikiLeaks featured her praising Putin as &#8220;very engaging&#8221; and even saying, &#8220;We don’t believe that there will be a threat from Russia.&#8221;
There are definitely legitimate reasons to be concerned about Russia as well as the newfound warmth for Putin among some Republicans. However, the Democrats and leftists howling about the Trump administration&#8217;s alleged ties to Russia are clearly only doing so as part of a partisan witch hunt instead of genuine concern about Putin. Otherwise, they&#8217;d denounce leftists like Schultz and Hartmann who work for Putin&#8217;s propaganda network.
Follow Aaron Bandler on Twitter <a href="https://twitter.com/bandlersbanter">@bandlersbanter</a>.

These Leftists Are All Employed By RT

Donald Trump

Hillary Clinton

Leftism

Media Bias

Sidney Blumenthal

Trump Administration

Now that famed economist and Green Party candidate Jill Stein has offered her sage wisdom as to how to solve the world&#8217;s economic problems, we can all rest easier, especially now that she has revealed her mastery of economic language.
Not.
In one tweet, Stein demonstrated her lack of knowledge of even the most basic economic language. Here it is:

<div class="media_embed">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
How would our world change if we stopped saying &#8220;per capita&#8221; and started saying &#8220;per person&#8221;? <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/JobsReport?src=hash">#JobsReport</a>
&#8212; Dr. Jill Stein (@DrJillStein) <a href="https://twitter.com/DrJillStein/status/817492781807636481">January 6, 2017</a></blockquote>
</div>
There&#8217;s one glaring problem here: &#8220;per capita&#8221; is a Latin prepositional phrase which means &#8220;by heads&#8221; or &#8220;for each head,&#8221; thus it means &#8220;per person.&#8221;
Stein&#8217;s faux pas elicited some amusing responses on Twitter:

<div class="media_embed">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/DrJillStein">@DrJillStein</a> Not at all to those of us who speak Latin.
&#8212; Andreas Moser (@AndreasMoser007) <a href="https://twitter.com/AndreasMoser007/status/817524348764491776">January 7, 2017</a></blockquote>
</div>

<div class="media_embed">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/DrJillStein">@DrJillStein</a> About as much as it did after your recount efforts. <a href="https://t.co/ehwo5v7AW4">https://t.co/ehwo5v7AW4</a>
&#8212; Wright (@WrightBrunoS) <a href="https://twitter.com/WrightBrunoS/status/818241649658785792">January 8, 2017</a></blockquote>
</div>

<div class="media_embed">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
.<a href="https://twitter.com/DrJillStein">@DrJillStein</a> It would be like saying &#8220;you&#8217;re full of it&#8221; instead of &#8220;reductio ad absurdum&#8221;
&#8212; Spencer Jakab (@Spencerjakab) <a href="https://twitter.com/Spencerjakab/status/818240000626229249">January 8, 2017</a></blockquote>
</div>

<div class="media_embed">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/DrJillStein">@DrJillStein</a> <a href="https://t.co/HMhgJdDGYI">pic.twitter.com/HMhgJdDGYI</a>
&#8212; myerman (@myerman) <a href="https://twitter.com/myerman/status/818241599184498688">January 8, 2017</a></blockquote>
</div>

<div class="media_embed">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/DrJillStein">@DrJillStein</a> it is just a Latin term used in statistics and science; why not say how would medicine change with head vs. cranium. Stupid
&#8212; Dan (@DanielMKegley) <a href="https://twitter.com/DanielMKegley/status/817496994730115072">January 6, 2017</a></blockquote>
</div>

<div class="media_embed">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
.<a href="https://twitter.com/DrJillStein">@DrJillStein</a> Keep saying stuff like that so people can really see the intellectual depth of politically correct socialism.
&#8212; Clifford Asness (@CliffordAsness) <a href="https://twitter.com/CliffordAsness/status/818238027109646340">January 8, 2017</a></blockquote>
</div>
Stein graduated magna cum laude from Harvard College, where she studied psychology, sociology, and anthropology, then attended Harvard Medical School and graduated in 1979.
But when it comes to economics or Latin, none of that helps.

Jill Stein Makes An Economic Suggestion. There Is Only One Major Problem.

Just as president-elect Donald Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan had surmised, Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein&#8217;s efforts to gain a recount in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania were a scam.
Trump <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/26/donald-trump-blasts-jill-stein-scam-recount-effort-issues-call-to-accept-results.html">called</a> Stein&#8217;s actions a &#8220;scam,&#8221; while Speaker of the House Paul Ryan <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/29/paul-ryan-jill-stein-recount-push-ridiculous/">termed</a> them a &#8220;ridiculous fundraising and publicity stunt.&#8221;
Sure enough, according to <a href="http://freebeacon.com/politics/stein-final-recount-costs-estimates-will-receive-2-million-refund/">The Washington Free Beacon</a>, Stein will receive $2 million in refunds after initial estimates overestimated the final costs of the failed presidential recount. Stein said on Tuesday that any remaining money from her efforts would be channeled to a group called Count My Vote, which would review the Wisconsin recount before it released a report.
According to Wisconsin Public Radio, Stein <a href="http://www.wpr.org/jill-stein-unveils-post-recount-effort-wisconsin">said</a>, &#8220;When we asked for a full recount we only got a hand recount in about half of the precincts for about half of the voters. So essentially what we got was half a recount. We also want to include in this ensuring we have a right to vote and that we put an end to voter ID laws to this interstate cross check that have taken millions of voters potentially off rolls, also ranked choice voting.
Stein raised $7.3 million for her presidential campaign, spending roughly $600,000 for consultants and staff working on the recount. The recount in Wisconsin found <a href="http://freebeacon.com/politics/trump-gains-162-vote-wisconsin-recount/">131 more votes</a> for Donald Trump, while the recount efforts in Pennsylvania and Michigan were blocked by federal courts.
Wisconsin had estimated that the recount would cost $3.5 million, but the final cost for 70 of the 72 counties in the state was $1.8 million. A spokesman for the Wisconsin Elections Commission said finishing the recount could raise the total to $2 million, thus Stein would be reimbursed $1.5 million.
A spokesperson for Michigan&#8217;s Department of State confirmed that Stein paid in full for 3,050 of the state&#8217;s 7,786 precincts before the courts halted the recount; but Stein will receive a refund for the remaining 4,736 precincts totaling $592,000.

How Much Cash Did Jill Stein Clear From That Ridiculous Recount Effort?

Michigan

Pennsylvania

Wisconsin

The colossal waste of time and money that was the Wisconsin recount has officially wrapped up, and the final tally is not what Democrats were hoping beyond hope for; in fact, Donald Trump came out of it with even more votes and a slightly larger advantage over dethroned Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. 
&#8220;Wisconsin&#8217;s historic presidential recount ended Monday resulting in a net gain of 131 votes for President-elect Donald Trump over Democrat Hillary Clinton, the Wisconsin Elections Commission said,&#8221; the <a href="http://Wisconsin&#8217;s historic presidential recount ended Monday resulting in a net gain of 131 votes for President-elect Donald Trump over Democrat Hillary Clinton, the Wisconsin Elections Commission said. Trump added 844 votes to his total for the Nov. 8 election, while Clinton added 713. Overall, the commission said, voters cast 2.976 million ballots. The recount resulted in a net increase of 837 ballots. &#8220;Completing this recount was a challenge, but the real winners are the voters,&#8221; Elections Commission Chairman Mark Thomsen said in a statement after signing off on the statewide results. &#8220;Based on the recount, they can have confidence that Wisconsin&#8217;s election results accurately reflect the will of the people, regardless of whether they are counted by hand or by machine.&#8221; The last statewide recount, in a 2011 Supreme Court race, resulted in a net change of 312 votes for the top two candidates out of 1.5 million ballots cast. The commission originally advised county clerks to complete their recount process by 8 p.m. Monday so it could certify the results on Tuesday, the last day federal law guarantees a state&#8217;s electoral votes will reflect the popular vote when the Electoral College convenes on Dec. 19. On Monday, the boards of canvassers in the final four counties &#8212; Dane, Milwaukee, Outagamie and Rock &#8212; certified their results. Dane County was the last to complete ballot-counting, on Saturday night. The recount of nearly 3 million votes began Dec. 1 after Green Party candidate Jill Stein paid the estimated $3.5 million cost. The actual cost won&#8217;t be known until counties report their costs by Dec. 30. Stein will be responsible for paying any amount over the original estimate and will be refunded if the cost is less. Last week, a federal judge rejected a lawsuit by Trump supporters seeking to halt the recount. Stein&#8217;s campaign has said the goal of the recount was to affirm the validity of the election amid concerns about foreign powers trying to influence the outcome of the election. Gov. Scott Walker expressed appreciation for the work done by the state&#8217;s 72 county clerks and hundreds of full-time, part-time and temporary employees. Like this story? Get local news sent to your inbox Email Sign Up! &#8220;They&#8217;ve shown all throughout this process that it was very clear that the vote was legitimate here in the state,&#8221; Walker said. Elections commissioner Don Millis on Monday criticized Stein&#8217;s decision to seek a recount as &#8220;an abuse of the system.&#8221; He said he doubted the commission would take a position on making changes to the state&#8217;s recount law, as Walker and some Republicans in the Legislature have advocated. Thomsen disagreed that Stein&#8217;s decision was an abuse. He said it amounted to an audit of the state&#8217;s entire election system at no cost to taxpayers. Typically the state spends $30,000 to audit election machines in 100 randomly selected municipalities. Thomsen also said there was no evidence that any of the voting systems that were used to tabulate the votes on election night were hacked or tampered with. &#8220;I&#8217;m personally very happy it was done,&#8221; Thomsen said. &#8220;Because not only Wisconsin but the world knows that our system has integrity.&#8221;">Wisconsin State Journal</a> reports. &#8220;Trump added 844 votes to his total for the Nov. 8 election, while Clinton added 713.&#8221;
Out of the total of 2,976 million ballots cast, the net increase ended up being only 837 ballots, a 0.03 percent change. In other words, rather than delegimitizing Trump&#8217;s win, as was <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/11095/7-reasons-jill-steins-recount-scam-aaron-bandler">the obvious goal</a> of failed Green Party candidate Jill Stein and those who backed her stunt, including Clinton, the recount just demonstrated how tightly Wisconsin runs its election process.
The Wisconsin Elections Commission chair <a href="http://elections.wi.gov/transition/elections/commissioners">Mark Thomsen</a> underscored the point in a statement issued after officially signing off on the result.
&#8220;Completing this recount was a challenge, but the real winners are the voters,&#8221; said Thomsen. &#8220;Based on the recount, they can have confidence that Wisconsin&#8217;s election results accurately reflect the will of the people, regardless of whether they are counted by hand or by machine.&#8221;
The Journal points out that the last recount in the state (in 2011) resulted in a similarly miniscule change: 312 votes out of 1.5 million cast (0.02%). 
So how much money was wasted on the effort to discredit Trump&#8217;s win? Stein raised around $3.5 million dollars to force the recount, but the final cost could go up or down in the next few weeks. The counties must report their final costs by Dec. 30. If the cost is more than Stein paid, she will be on the hook to make up the difference; if it is less, that amount will be refunded to her.
While Thomsen, a Democrat, defended Stein&#8217;s multi-million-dollar recount effort, Republican elections commission member <a href="http://elections.wi.gov/transition/elections/commissioners">Don Milis</a> denounced the whole thing as &#8220;an abuse of the system.&#8221;
Without any evidence, Stein alleged that the Russians had hacked the voting machines. After all the money and man hours, Thomsen came to the same conclusion that the commission held prior to the massive effort: No one hacked or tampered with the machines&#8212;more people simply voted for Trump than Clinton. 
<a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/11095/7-reasons-jill-steins-recount-scam-aaron-bandler">Read more on Stein&#8217;s recount scam here</a>.

$3.5 Million Wisconsin Recount Completed. Guess Who Ended Up With Even MORE Votes.

Democratic Party

Republican Party

The crazy November election recount effort has suddenly become a lot more expensive than people realized, raising questions as to just how much the recount is going to cost.
<a href="http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/307786-wisconsin-recount-to-cost-35m">The Hill reports</a> that the Wisconsin Elections Commission has determined that the recount will cost an estimated $3.5 billion&#8211;a much higher sum than expected.
&#8220;County clerks have done their best to estimate the actual costs of conducting a large recount in a relatively short time,&#8221; Michael Haas, the commission&#8217;s administrator said in a statement, per The Hill. &#8220;The estimates may vary wildly as some clerks may not have been able to precisely identify their estimated costs in the short time available for them. If the estimate turns out to be too high, the campaign will receive a refund. If the estimate is too low, they will have to pay the additional cost.&#8221;
Jill Stein referred to the whopping price tag as &#8220;exorbitant&#8221; and an &#8220;undue burden,&#8221; but she is determined to funnel through that amount of money to the Wisconsin Elections Commission by the 4:30 pm Tuesday deadline, per the <a href="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/national-politics/article117661003.html">Associated Press</a>.
Stein has already called for another $2.4 million in donations, and it&#8217;s also possible for and her and Reform Party candidate Ricky de la Puente to share the cost.
Would recounts in Michigan and Pennsylvania cost the same amount? That remains to be seen. <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/11/28/recount-need-to-know/94547368/">USA Today</a> estimated that the recount in Michigan would cost $787,500, and Stein has projected the recount cost to be $500,000 in Pennsylvania. However, Wisconsin was expected to cost as high as $1 million, and the actual cost was higher than that.
Stein&#8217;s recount efforts still remain <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/11095/7-reasons-jill-steins-recount-scam-aaron-bandler">a scam</a>, as the Wisconsin Election Commission&#8217;s high cost just gives her another opportunity to fleece donors on a recount she can&#8217;t guarantee and<a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/11144/hillary-clintons-challenging-election-results-7-aaron-bandler"> likely won&#8217;t change the outcome of the election</a>.
Should Wisconsin&#8217;s recount go forward, it would start on Thursday.

How Much Will This Crazy Recount Cost?

Hillary Clinton is now backing Jill Stein&#8217;s efforts for a recount, as she will resort to any last-ditch efforts to fulfill her dream of becoming a president. Unfortunately for her, challenging the election results is idiotic, and here are seven reasons why.
1. Hillary already conceded. The fact that Clinton already gave <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politics/hillary-clinton-concession-speech/">a concession speech</a>, only to challenge the election results weeks later, reeks of a petty, sore loser attitude.
2. Hillary went after Donald Trump during the campaign for railing against a supposedly rigged vote. 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Donald Trump refused to say that he&#8217;d respect the results of this election.
That&#8217;s a direct threat to our democracy.
&#8212; Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) <a href="https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/790612127996403712">October 24, 2016</a></blockquote>
Now that Clinton is backing recount efforts, she is now not respecting the results of the election.
Hypocrisy, thy name is Hillary Clinton.
3. There is no reason to think that there was a rigged election. The Daily Wire has explained <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/11045/7-reasons-election-wasnt-rigged-aaron-bandler">here</a> that there is no indication that there were rigged electronic voting machines, and Trump&#8217;s advantage over Clinton in that regard was due to demographics, not because of a widespread conspiracy.
4. Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania would all have to be overturned in order for Clinton to become president. That&#8217;s not happening. <a href="http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-i-support-an-election-audit-even-though-its-unlikely-to-change-the-outcome/">Nate Silver</a> points out that Trump leads by &#8220;roughly 11,000 votes in Michigan, 23,000 votes in Wisconsin and 68,000 votes in Pennsylvania.&#8221;
&#8220;There&#8217;s no precedent for a recount overturning margins like those or anything close to them,&#8221; Silver wrote.
Indeed, recounts typically only have a shot at changing results if the margin was in the hundreds, but since Trump is leading by tens of thousands of votes in all three states Clinton needs to win, there&#8217;s no way that a recount is going to change anything.
5. The recount deadline for Pennsylvania has already passed. <a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/pennsylvania-state-department-says-stein-missed-recount-deadline/article/2608305">Stein missed it</a>, so she is resorting to a legal challenge, and a judge would have to conclude that a widespread vote rigging occurred, and there is simply no evidence of that. 
6. Hillary&#8217;s people have admitted that the recount likely won&#8217;t change anything. According to the uber left-wing <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/why-hillary-is-right-to-b_b_13268748.html">Huffington Post</a>:
<blockquote>
Now here&#8217;s the &#8220;but&#8221; part of the recount call. It almost certainly won&#8217;t change anything. Clinton campaign officials have pretty much said as much. The number of votes Trump got over Clinton in Pennsylvania appear to be too great to overcome, even if irregularities are found in some voting districts. This means the electoral vote win Trump got in the state will stand. Though there is suspicion about the vote in some precincts in Wisconsin, there as yet is no tangible evidence of theft, tampering or hacking to boost Trump&#8217;s numbers there.
</blockquote>
The Clinton team knows that nothing is going to change from the recount efforts, but they&#8217;re backing it anyway. It&#8217;s a clearly a dog-and-pony show.
7. Stein&#8217;s recount effort is a scam. As the Daily Wire has explained <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/11095/7-reasons-jill-steins-recount-scam-aaron-bandler">here</a>, Stein is clearly running a scam with the recount because she kept moving the fundraising goals, her legal costs suddenly surged, and she admitted that she can&#8217;t guarantee a recount and that extra money would go toward promoting &#8220;voting system reform.&#8221; By backing a recount, Clinton is indirectly lending credence to Stein&#8217;s scam, and lending credence to scams is never a good thing.

Hillary Clinton’s Challenging The Election Results. 7 Reasons That’s Idiotic.

Since Fidel Castro passed away, the left continues to praise the late tyrannical Communist dictator. The UK Labour Party&#8217;s commissar Jeremy Corbyn, for example, <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-38117068">said that he will be remembered as a &#8220;champion of social justice&#8221;</a> despite killing thousands of his people and impoverishing the Cuban population. Scam artist Green Party head Jill Stein <a href="https://twitter.com/DrJillStein/status/802674859104935936">said</a> that Castro was a &#8220;symbol for the struggle for justice.&#8221; In light of Castro&#8217;s passing, many Cuban-Americans openly celebrated the dictator&#8217;s death. This triggered a Los Angeles-based radio host named Tariq Nasheed. According to Nasheed, the reason why these Cuban-Americans celebrated Castro&#8217;s death was because of racism.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Castro wanted ALL Cubans-white and Black- to have the same rights. Notice all the Cubans celebrating his death in Miami are WHITE Cubans?
&#8212; Tariq Nasheed (@tariqnasheed) <a href="https://twitter.com/tariqnasheed/status/802640878393135105">November 26, 2016</a></blockquote>
According to Nasheed, Cuban refugees took to the streets in joy over Castro&#8217;s passing not because he imprisoned, tortured, and murdered their family members or forced them to make the perilous journey to freedom, but because they were bigoted white supremacists. The left cannot rationalize any legitimate grievance against Communist dictators or socialist advocates like Bernie Sanders without playing to identity politics. Naturally, I called him out on it.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Here it is, the dumbest comment regarding Castro&#8217;s death. Identity politics on crystal methamphetamine. <a href="https://t.co/ptBYWOeVgf">https://t.co/ptBYWOeVgf</a>
&#8212; Elliott Hamilton (@ElliottRHams) <a href="https://twitter.com/ElliottRHams/status/803252787886759937">November 28, 2016</a></blockquote>
What resulted from this comment on Nasheed&#8217;s baseless and ludicrous claim was an hour-long &#8220;debate&#8221; on whether Daily Wire Editor-In-Chief Ben Shapiro and I were &#8220;white supremacists.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/ElliottRHams">@ElliottRHams</a> yet you follow suspected white supremacists like Ben Shapiro.. um ok
&#8212; Tariq Nasheed (@tariqnasheed) <a href="https://twitter.com/tariqnasheed/status/803255205739409408">November 28, 2016</a></blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
To insinuate that the most targeted Jewish journalist by the anti-Semitic and racist alt-right is a &#8220;white supremacist&#8221; is absurdly idiotic. <a href="https://t.co/dzkXtOmbnn">https://t.co/dzkXtOmbnn</a>
&#8212; Elliott Hamilton (@ElliottRHams) <a href="https://twitter.com/ElliottRHams/status/803258787196993537">November 28, 2016</a></blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/ElliottRHams">@ElliottRHams</a> because white supremacy transcends religion. Nice try tho
&#8212; Tariq Nasheed (@tariqnasheed) <a href="https://twitter.com/tariqnasheed/status/803266456477499393">November 28, 2016</a></blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Let me get this straight: Someone who belongs to a religion that white supremacists terrorize could still be a white supremacist? R u nuts?! <a href="https://t.co/Wl8UGN7WBY">https://t.co/Wl8UGN7WBY</a>
&#8212; Elliott Hamilton (@ElliottRHams) <a href="https://twitter.com/ElliottRHams/status/803267591129223169">November 28, 2016</a></blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
The same Democrat white supremacists who lynched black people in the south also attacked Jews <a href="https://twitter.com/tariqnasheed">@tariqnasheed</a> <a href="https://t.co/lhx2Oc6Sue">pic.twitter.com/lhx2Oc6Sue</a>
&#8212; Elliott Hamilton (@ElliottRHams) <a href="https://twitter.com/ElliottRHams/status/803269323540353025">November 28, 2016</a></blockquote>
After stating an <a href="http://archive.adl.org/learn/ext_us/kkk/history.html?LEARN_Cat=ExtremismLEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America">indisputable fact</a> that the Democrat-founded Ku Klux Klan targeted both Jews and black Americans, Nasheed insinuated that I was a &#8220;white supremacist&#8221; and sent a meme that likened me to the Nazis, who committed genocide against the Jewish people. Being Jewish myself, I took no time in expressing my disgust at such a preposterous claim.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/ElliottRHams">@ElliottRHams</a> lol AND you just used the &#8220;democrats&#8221; deflection too. LOL you suspected white supremacists lack any forms of originality <a href="https://t.co/VEk0dr4xo8">pic.twitter.com/VEk0dr4xo8</a>
&#8212; Tariq Nasheed (@tariqnasheed) <a href="https://twitter.com/tariqnasheed/status/803270993099665408">November 28, 2016</a></blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
You are deflecting my counterpoint to post idiotic memes suggesting I&#8217;m like the genocidal maniacs who murdered my ancestors. Disgusting. <a href="https://t.co/7N3TowC5lw">https://t.co/7N3TowC5lw</a>
&#8212; Elliott Hamilton (@ElliottRHams) <a href="https://twitter.com/ElliottRHams/status/803271776293810176">November 28, 2016</a></blockquote>
Throughout the exchange, I did not bring up his complexion or his identity because I, like most conservatives, only care about one&#8217;s values and ideas. As I mentioned multiple times, his views are completely beyond the pale and asinine. However, Nasheed kept bringing race into the conversation as a means to delegitimize any of my counterpoints against his absurd accusations.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
You cannot even attack me on the merits of my beliefs but rely solely on targeting my complexion. Who&#8217;s the racist again? <a href="https://twitter.com/tariqnasheed">@tariqnasheed</a>
&#8212; Elliott Hamilton (@ElliottRHams) <a href="https://twitter.com/ElliottRHams/status/803272227256934400">November 28, 2016</a></blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
What have I said that is racist? I dare you to find an objectively racist comment I&#8217;ve made. You&#8217;re bastardizing the term. <a href="https://twitter.com/tariqnasheed">@tariqnasheed</a>
&#8212; Elliott Hamilton (@ElliottRHams) <a href="https://twitter.com/ElliottRHams/status/803272753079947265">November 28, 2016</a></blockquote>
Nasheed even attempted to incorporate my standing as a blogger for The Times of Israel as evidence of my &#8220;suspected white supremacy.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
It&#8217;s a non sequitur to the conversation at hand. <a href="https://twitter.com/tariqnasheed">@tariqnasheed</a>
&#8212; Elliott Hamilton (@ElliottRHams) <a href="https://twitter.com/ElliottRHams/status/803274369959137280">November 28, 2016</a></blockquote>
Every time I asked for any legitimate evidence that I said anything objectively racist, Nasheed kept falling back to the position that he had only &#8220;suspected&#8221; me of being one based on his own feelings. In his mind, this means that he can label me whatever he wants without having to display any proof. This is a common leftist tactic where they do not need to show you anything substantive to prove why they labeled you, hoping that people catch on and miraculously agree with them. That tactic always fails.
Eventually, Nasheed stopped trying to claim that I was a &#8220;suspected white supremacist&#8221; and said that I was &#8220;reduced&#8221; to being a &#8220;time-wasting troll.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/ElliottRHams">@ElliottRHams</a> Now you are reduced to being a TWT <a href="https://t.co/Rioy5t7qNF">pic.twitter.com/Rioy5t7qNF</a>
&#8212; Tariq Nasheed (@tariqnasheed) <a href="https://twitter.com/tariqnasheed/status/803280044952981504">November 28, 2016</a></blockquote>
Again, he continued to insinuate that I was a racist even though he gave no substantive proof that I had said anything objectively bigoted. I responded in the only way that I could: Mockery.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Again with the &#8220;racist&#8221; label without proof? Are you actually a parody account or do you actually believe what you&#8217;re saying? Both are bad. <a href="https://t.co/lsyswEC2t2">https://t.co/lsyswEC2t2</a>
&#8212; Elliott Hamilton (@ElliottRHams) <a href="https://twitter.com/ElliottRHams/status/803280488941154304">November 28, 2016</a></blockquote>
Not surprisingly, Nasheed blocked me immediately afterwards.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
I knew this was going to be the end result of this nonsense. He is a pathetic leftist coward. <a href="https://t.co/DfdWRZk0EJ">pic.twitter.com/DfdWRZk0EJ</a>
&#8212; Elliott Hamilton (@ElliottRHams) <a href="https://twitter.com/ElliottRHams/status/803281511982178304">November 28, 2016</a></blockquote>
Leftists do not rely on any empirical or objective tests to demonstrate how somebody they disagree with is a racist, sexist, bigot, or a homophobe. Instead, they arbitrarily use labels to escape an intellectual conversation based on the merits of their ideas, their policies, and their world views. The only way to argue with the left is to take away their character assassination attempts and discredit their premises using facts and logic. It is nearly impossible to convince these individuals that their ideas are flawed, nonsensical, and morally repugnant. However, it is important to not give into the name-calling and the labels; better to start holding their feet to the fire on evidence and on the merits of their beliefs.
Identity politics is a self-destructive game that <a href="http://theweek.com/articles/662656/beware-liberal-thought-police">many</a> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-identity-liberalism.html?_r=1">commentators</a> have suggested cost the Democrats the election and helped in Donald Trump&#8217;s rise to the presidency. Instead of focusing on differences in our complexions, our religions, and our creeds, Americans want to see us unify under the things that bind us together. Tariq Nasheed and others leftists do not want unity but rather endless divisions that keep our nation from moving forward after a consequential and vitriolic election season. The left, along with their alt-right counterparts they ironically claim to hate but have so much in common with, endanger future discourse. We as Americans must do everything to combat these radicals and hold their feet to the fire.

My Fight With A Leftist Radio Host Who Called Anti-Castro Cubans White Supremacists

Anti-Semitism

Fidel Castro

Jeremy Corbyn

Racism

As exposed <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/9730/democrats-claim-theres-no-voter-fraud-heres-more-aaron-bandler">time and again</a>, and most recently through <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/10044/okeefe-undercover-videos-part-ii-massive-amanda-prestigiacomo">Project Veritas undercover videos</a>, voter fraud is real&#8212;hence the push by Republicans to implement voter ID laws. This being the case, then-Republican nominee Donald Trump <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-concede-election-results-2016-10">explained</a> back in October that he would &#8220;look&#8221; at the election results before &#8220;accepting&#8221; and conceding the presidency to his opponent. (Remember, there was no way Trump could win at this point, per the media.)
As you may recall, the left had a field day with such a response from Trump&#8212;or, more accurately, <a href="https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/10/20/trump-undermines-legitimacy-our-democracy/4QnnD3g3o6JVHzSXFGJq7M/story.html">a complete meltdown</a>. Through fits of hyperventilation, leftists everywhere claimed Trump was an impediment to democracy as we know it. And the leader of the Democratic Party and then-presidential nominee Hillary Clinton was the loudest voice in the Choir of Hysteria. 
Yes, that would be the woman whose campaign is now <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/26/politics/clinton-campaign-recount/">joining</a> former Green Party nominee Jill Stein in challenging the election results, demanding a recount in three states: Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. 
According to Stein, and apparently Team Hillary, Russia may have changed the outcome of our election via hacking, though there is <a href="http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/demographics-not-hacking-explain-the-election-results/">no credible evidence</a> to back this assertion up. 
Here&#8217;s Hillary during the election working herself up over Trump&#8217;s statement, which she condemned as a &#8220;threat to democracy.&#8221;
<div class="media_embed">
<blockquote data-lang="en">
HILLARY&#8217;S OWN WORDS:
&#8220;Failure to accept the election results is a direct threat to our democracy&#8221;
&#8220;Peaceful transfer of power is a must&#8221; <a href="https://t.co/QfVNIlNAqp">pic.twitter.com/QfVNIlNAqp</a>
&#8212; Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) <a href="https://twitter.com/charliekirk11/status/802941477592690688">November 27, 2016</a></blockquote>
</div>
&#8220;To say you won&#8217;t respect the result of the election, that is a direct threat to our democracy,&#8221; the former secretary of state said to her rally attendees, in her iconic Resting Yell Voice. 
&#8220;The peaceful transfer of power is one of the things that makes America, America!&#8221; she continued. 
And perhaps the most ironic of her comments: &#8220;Look, some people are just sore losers.&#8221; True. 
As Daily Wire&#8217;s Frank Camp <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/11112/hypocrisy-fraud-doesnt-exist-until-left-needs-it-frank-camp">pointed out</a> on Sunday, the left is only on board with &#8220;fraud&#8221; when it suits them, otherwise it&#8217;s a &#8220;right-wing conspiracy.&#8221; Let&#8217;s go ahead and tack this onto the left&#8217;s long list of double-standards.

FLASHBACK VIDEO: Hillary: Failure to Accept Election Results is ‘Direct Threat to Democracy’

Project Veritas

Republican and conservative politicians have voiced concerns about election fraud for years, citing <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/17/no-voter-fraud-isnt-myth-10-cases-where-its-all-to/">numerous cases</a> in which minimal, though still <a href="http://thefederalist.com/2016/10/13/voter-fraud-real-heres-proof/">alarming</a>, irregularities took place in various elections. In order to combat instances of fraud, Republicans in many states have pushed for stricter voter identification laws.
Democrats routinely dismiss the notion of fraud, and fight against the institution of more expansive voter ID laws, claiming such laws are simply a stealth voter-suppression campaign being executed by Republicans. According to Democrats, <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/10/29/the-voter-fraud-myth">voter fraud doesn&#8217;t exist</a> (until you need it to).
<a href="http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/activists-urge-hillary-clinton-to-challenge-election-results.html">New York Magazine</a> reported Tuesday that the director of the University of Michigan Center for Computer Security and Society, J. Alex Halderman, voting-rights attorney John Bonifaz, as well as several others, believe the elections in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin may have been manipulated:
<blockquote>
Clinton received 7 percent fewer votes in counties that relied on electronic-voting machines compared with counties that used optical scanners and paper ballots. Based on this statistical analysis, Clinton may have been denied as many as 30,000 votes; she lost Wisconsin by 27,000.
While it&#8217;s important to note the group has not found proof of hacking or manipulation, they are arguing to the campaign that the suspicious pattern merits an independent review &#8212; especially in light of the fact that the Obama White House has accused the Russian government of hacking the Democratic National Committee.
</blockquote>
In an article published on <a href="https://medium.com/@jhalderm/want-to-know-if-the-election-was-hacked-look-at-the-ballots-c61a6113b0ba#.p2x8gfxv6">Medium</a>, Halderman clarified his argument, citing Russian cyber attacks on Ukraine, as well as attempts to &#8220;breach state voter registration databases&#8221; in Arizona and Illinois, according to <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/russians-hacked-two-u-s-voter-databases-say-officials-n639551">NBC News</a>. However, he concedes that the results in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania were &#8220;probably not&#8221; the product of hacking.
Additionally, <a href="http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/demographics-not-hacking-explain-the-election-results/">FiveThirtyEight</a> published a piece on Wednesday, titled: &#8220;Demographics, Not Hacking, Explain The Election Results,&#8221; in which Carl Bialik and Rob Arthur state that Halderman&#8217;s claim &#8220;doesn&#8217;t check out.&#8221;
Regardless of the fact that no tangible evidence of hacking has been revealed, Green Party candidate, Jill Stein, started a <a href="https://jillstein.nationbuilder.com/recount">fundraiser</a> in order to have recounts conducted in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. In just four days, Stein has received $6.1 million. According to the official fundraising website, over 130,000 people have donated to the cause.
Now, the Clinton camp has joined ranks with Stein in the recount effort, according to <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/26/politics/clinton-campaign-recount/">CNN</a>. The campaign&#8217;s council, Marc Elias, said Clinton isn&#8217;t participating in the recount in order to contest the election, but to &#8220;ensure that it is fair to all sides.&#8221; Sure.
As of Sunday, Donald Trump leads Hillary Clinton by approximately <a href="http://cookpolitical.com/story/10174">10,700 votes</a> in Michigan, <a href="http://cookpolitical.com/story/10174">22,500 votes</a> in Wisconsin, and <a href="http://cookpolitical.com/story/10174">68,000 votes</a> in Pennsylvania. Over 100,000 votes would need to be deemed fraudulent or miscounted for Clinton to have even a chance at turning all three states&#8211;which is what she would need to win the election. Such an outcome is nearly impossible.
Despite this, 130,000 people&#8211;the majority of whom are likely Democrats&#8211;seem to believe such an outcome is indeed possible. Democrats all across social media suddenly believe that fraud is not only a reality, but occurring on a massive scale. The Clinton campaign appears to believe this as well. Fraud is suddenly the progressive cause célèbre.
In order to avoid contradicting themselves, it&#8217;s not voter fraud progressives are worried about&#8211;that would be an insane right-wing conspiracy theory&#8211;but hacking fraud for which no evidence has been found. That&#8217;s a more reasonable position&#8211;and there&#8217;s no place like home. There&#8217;s no place like home.&#8203; There&#8217;s no place like home.&#8203;

Hypocrisy: Fraud Doesn’t Exist Until the Left Needs it to

Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein is raising money to call for a recount in three states: Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. She said that it was necessary due to &#8220;reported hacks into voter and party databases and individual email accounts are causing many Americans to wonder if our election results are reliable.&#8221; A <a href="http://ktla.com/2016/11/25/green-party-files-for-recount-in-wisconsin-following-reports-of-voting-discrepancies/">Wisconsin recount request</a> was filed on Friday.
However, it appears that Stein&#8217;s efforts to obtain a recount are nothing more than a scam. Here are seven reasons why.
1. There is no evidence that the election results weren&#8217;t reliable. As the <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/11045/7-reasons-election-wasnt-rigged-aaron-bandler">Daily Wire</a> has explained, there is nothing to suggest that the electronic voting machines were hacked. Donald Trump&#8217;s advantage over Hillary Clinton in electronic voting was a result of demographics, not a hack, and Michigan&#8217;s ballots were all paper. The entire premise for Stein&#8217;s recount is false.
2. When Stein first announced her recount efforts, her goal was to reach $2.5 million. Now it&#8217;s $7 million. Stein has raised $5 million since Wednesday, causing the goal to rise from $2.5 million to $4.5 million to $7 million, according to <a href="http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/25/503349326/people-have-donated-millions-to-jill-steins-recount-campaign-is-it-worth-it">National Public Radio</a>. What caused the sudden rise in Stein&#8217;s fundraising goal?
3. Stein&#8217;s legal costs suddenly surged. Per <a href="http://townhall.com/tipsheet/christinerousselle/2016/11/25/jill-stein-raises-45-millionand-says-she-cant-guarantee-a-recount-n2250628">Townhall</a>:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
As <a href="https://twitter.com/DrJillStein">@</a><a href="https://twitter.com/DrJillStein">DrJillStein</a>&#8216;s <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Recount2016?src=hash">#Recount2016</a> campaign nears $2 mil, she changes total goal to $6 or $7 mil. <a href="https://t.co/L4oawAoqOO">pic.twitter.com/L4oawAoqOO</a>
&#8212; David Fishman (@davidpkfishman) <a href="https://twitter.com/davidpkfishman/status/801643478501429248">November 24, 2016</a></blockquote>
Why would her legal fees suddenly rise by that much over a short period of time?
4. Stein can&#8217;t guarantee that the recounts will actually happen. &#8220;We cannot guarantee a recount will happen any of these states,&#8221; Stein&#8217;s website states. &#8220;We can only pledge we will demand recounts in those states.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
READ THE FINE PRINT: There probably won&#8217;t be a recount and Jill Stein will line her pockets with the money for &#8220;integrity efforts&#8221; <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NoRefund?src=hash">#NoRefund</a> <a href="https://t.co/a3fF5JOpGP">pic.twitter.com/a3fF5JOpGP</a>
&#8212; Tim Young (@TimRunsHisMouth) <a href="https://twitter.com/TimRunsHisMouth/status/801633246597545986">November 24, 2016</a></blockquote>
That&#8217;s kind of an important detail.
5. Stein&#8217;s website also states that excess money will go towards &#8220;election integrity efforts.&#8221; 
&#8220;If we raise more than what&#8217;s needed, the surplus will also go toward election integrity efforts and to promote voting system reform,&#8221; the website reads. What exactly that kind of reform will be was not specified by Stein, leaving the possibility open that the money will simply be funneled back to the Green Party. 
&#8220;This is Democrat party fundraising at its best because ultimately all the Greens are are Democrats with bad personal hygiene who failed economics and history,&#8221; writes RedState blogger <a href="http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/11/25/green-party-candidate-jill-steins-hilarious-fundraising-scam/">streiff</a>. &#8220;Stein&#8217;s fundraising appeal using a recount that is never going to happen will go down as one of the greatest bait-and-switch scams in political history.&#8221;
6. It is highly unlikely that Stein would be able to pull off a recount in Pennsylvania.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
There is no way that Jill Stein is actually going to do all this by Monday, the deadline for a recount in PA &#8212; the fundraising is a ruse. <a href="https://t.co/tIFPsuUsiD">pic.twitter.com/tIFPsuUsiD</a>
&#8212; Michael Tracey (@mtracey) <a href="https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/801972249209270272">November 25, 2016</a></blockquote>
And even if Stein were to clear all those hurdles by Monday, the recount still would likely fall through, and Trump would still be president:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
All three states &#8212; WI, MI, PA &#8212; would have to be overturned in order for Hillary to win the electoral college. 2 out of 3 is not enough.
&#8212; Michael Tracey (@mtracey) <a href="https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/801974401243774976">November 25, 2016</a></blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Recounts have only the slightest chance of overturning the result if the margin is in the hundreds. Trump leads in PA by 68,814. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ItsOver?src=hash">#ItsOver</a>
&#8212; Michael Tracey (@mtracey) <a href="https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/801977009861783552">November 25, 2016</a></blockquote>
7. Both the left and the right on Twitter are calling Stein&#8217;s recount efforts a scam. Via <a href="http://soopermexican.com/2016/11/25/jill-stein-is-scamming-gullible-liberals-for-millions-over-an-electoral-recount/">SooperMexican</a>:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Not saying this Jill Stein thing is a scam, but if it were a scam, it would probably look a lot like this. <a href="https://t.co/pg4eAuFQ4h">https://t.co/pg4eAuFQ4h</a>
&#8212; Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) <a href="https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/802200073375510529">November 25, 2016</a></blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Jill Stein&#8217;s racket is incredible:
Step 1: Cost the Dem the Election 
Step 2: wait for Trump panic 
Step 3: Bilk millions for recount.
&#8212; Jonah Goldberg (@JonahNRO) <a href="https://twitter.com/JonahNRO/status/802140853426913280">November 25, 2016</a></blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Folks giving Jill Stein money &#8220;for a recount&#8221; are gonna be ripped off.
&#8212; Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) <a href="https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/801831477214408704">November 24, 2016</a></blockquote>
When even <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/10236/11-stupid-things-voxcoms-matthew-yglesias-has-said-aaron-bandler">Matt Yglesias</a> is accusing Stein of running a scam, then it&#8217;s probably a scam.
(h/t: <a href="http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/jill-stein-now-cant-guarantee-money-will-go-to-unlikely-recount/">LawNewz</a>)

Menu