Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: dirtboy

I think there is an easy solution to this.

First off, a recount will not determine irregularities in voting. Second, if that is not the case, then Stein is asking for a recount based on votes for and against... Stein. As I see it, unless a PAC is paying for this, which they aren’t, contributions to Stein need to meet FEC laws. This means, anything over 2k for Stein is an illegal contribution and cannot be accepted by Wisconsin as payment for the recount.


22 posted on 11/28/2016 7:49:40 AM PST by EQAndyBuzz (Election 2016 - Best election ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]


To: EQAndyBuzz

Another excellent point.


28 posted on 11/28/2016 7:51:27 AM PST by DarthVader ("These lying tyrants are about to get hit with a tsunami of destruction on their evil reign." Gaffer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

To: EQAndyBuzz
https://twitter.com/harleytime1/status/803031108686184448?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
60 posted on 11/28/2016 8:35:40 AM PST by wtd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

To: EQAndyBuzz

I’ve read that since all of MI and much of PA use paper ballots not possible to hack, Stein’s evidence of fraud is strictly limited to supposed differences between actual results and polling, prior to and exit. I cannot imagine a PA judge granting a recount on those terms. To do so would say that poll results should determine election outcome.


74 posted on 11/28/2016 8:52:55 AM PST by xkaydet65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson