Vicki McKenna Show 11/28 Judge Jim Troupis (WI Recall Expert)

iHeart Radio ^ | 11-28-16 | Vicki McKenna

[bigbob]

Conservative talk show host Vicki McKenna on WIBA Madison interviews constitutional attorney and retired Judge Jim Troupis, the leading Wisconsin expert on election recoun t law and procedure. He explains why it is impossible for Wisconsin elections to be "hacked" and why the hearing on a hand recount is unnecessary and should take no more than 1/2 hour.

Skip to 3:20 to where the recount discussion begins if you're not a Packer fan.

[bigbob]

This is a long ( minutes) but extremely fascinating interview with Judge Troupis who describes the recount process in great detail. He led the statewide recount in the Justice Prosser election several years ago in which all these procedures were developed, since there hadn't been a statewide recount in WI in over 100 years. Judge Troupis explains that WI ballot counting is decentralized and that since nothing is sent over the internet (results are called in by phone or faxed), there is ZERO percent chance for WI voting to be hacked. He also explains exactly how the recount will be done and why hand counting is unnecessary unless the Stein lawyers can prove that the machines are not reliable and that the hand count would change the outcome of the election.

This is a long clip but if you want to know FACTS rather than the noise that gets posted on the internet about the WI recount, this is where you can get them.

[bigbob]

forgot to fill in the blank - the interview runs 30 minutes. Well worth the time, the Judge is fascinating to listen to.

[funfan]

Very interesting thank you for posting that link. I hope the court refuses the hand count due to their lack of overwhelming evidence that the vote totals would change the election results.

[Hostage]

The reason Stein wants a ‘hand recount’ in WI is likely the same as why she wants it in MI.

She and her lawyers have found there were 85,000 ballots in MI that were voted but there was no vote for the Office of President. In other words, as we would expect, there were people that decided not to vote for President.

The number of cast votes in MI was about 4.8 million. So 85,000 non-President votes amount to less than 2% of those that voted.

But Stein wants to hand count those 85,000 to ‘divine’ voter intent. She wants to see if there are any marks around the oval for Hillary that would indicate the voter meant to vote for Hillary, a hanging chad type scenario.

The most damning evidence against Stein is seen in the question of why she chose WI, MI, PA which are states that Clinton lost and not states that Trump lost by smaller margins such as NH. Stein was asked this question several times and she ignored it, refusing to answer. So she’s working for Clinton, why? Because Fidel Castro wanted Clinton and Stein is a Castro worshipper (it’s true; she’s got a screw loose about Cuba and Castro).

Here’s a list of the 10 closest 2016 states ranked from narrowest margin by percentage to widest:

1. Michigan 0.3 percent
Trump 47.6 percent, Clinton 47.3 percent
Difference: 13,080 votes

2. New Hampshire 0.4 percent
Clinton 47.6 percent, Trump 47.2 percent
Difference: 2,701 votes

3. Wisconsin 1 percent
Trump 47.9 percent, Clinton 46.9 percent
Difference: 27,257 votes

4. Pennsylvania 1.2 percent
Trump 48.8 percent, Clinton 47.6 percent
Difference: 68,236 votes (99 percent reporting)

5. Florida 1.2 percent
Trump 49 percent, Clinton 47.8 percent
Difference: 114,455 votes

6. Minnesota 1.5 percent
Clinton 46.4 percent, Trump 44.9 percent
Difference: 44,470 votes

7. Nevada 2.4 percent
Clinton 47.9 percent, Trump 45.5 percent
Difference: 26,434 votes

8. Maine 2.7 percent
Clinton 47.9 percent, Trump 45.2 percent
Difference: 19,995 votes

9. North Carolina 3.8 percent
Trump 49.9 percent, Clinton 46.1 percent
Difference: 177,009 votes

10. Arizona 3.9 percent
Trump 49.3 percent, Clinton 45.4 percent
Difference: 91,682 votes

http://www.usnews.com/news/the-run-2016/articles/2016-11-14/the-10-closest-states-in-the-2016-election

[funfan]

How did they find out there were 85,000 ballots without a presidential candidate marked on it in Michigan?

[Hostage]

This just in:

> “The data from the Exit Polls conducted by Edison Research for the National Election Pool show Mr. Che to be correct – an extremely small portion of the voting public (only 2%) told our exit pollsters they had a favorable view of both. While most voters did have a favorable view of one of the two major candidates – an astonishing 18% of the electorate told us they had an unfavorable opinion of both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. And this is the group that won the election for Trump”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3499351/posts

Let’s repeat the pertinent information in the above:

“an ***astonishing 18%*** of the electorate told us they had an unfavorable opinion of both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.”

Now contrast this exit poll information data with what Stein said in what follows here:

> “In Michigan, Trump won by 11,000 votes. But there were 85,000 ‘blank votes’ in which people voted for other races but they left the presidential race blank. That is far higher than any election in history.”

The 85,000 ‘blank votes’ for President were out of about 4.8 million votes cast in MI, so that the 85,000 represent less than 2 percent of all votes.

Stein is lying.

She’s asking for hand recounts to ‘divine the intent’ of voters that refrained from voting for any preid3ntial candidate.

[funfan]

I just read an article about those blank ballots. I am sure they were already reviewd when the precincts did there tallies and there were no marks on them. Funny she doesn’t mention those ballots.

[butterdezillion]

There were a lot of people who didn’t want either Trump or Hillary but had nobody to vote for. A substantial number of my extended family falls into that category. It is VERY plausible that there would be more “undervotes” this time. That’s what happens when the media napalms the candidate opposing the candidate known to be a treasonous criminal. There’s nobody left for the thinking (but ignorant because they only have time for MSM “news” snippets) public to vote for.

Leaving a ballot blank IS a voter expressing their desire. To throw out and/or falsely ascribe some other intent is to silence the will of those voters.

My policy is to abstain from voting on any candidate/issue I have not researched myself. My ballot is ALWAYS an “under-vote” because I take the responsibility to vote wisely very seriously and don’t have time to research everything. For somebody to throw out my vote because I have that policy would be unconscionable.

[holden]

While it's reasonable to cite the "most damning evidence", as you've done, Castro is not likely to have had much influence in this process, unless perhaps his surrogates were posthumously botting in $160k per night over Thanksgiving break.

But the Left is tipping its hand to lionize Fidel in a timely fashion to show us the kind of government for which they have in misty-eyed fashion yearned. As BHO took over the reins when he deemed Congress would not act, they want such a dictator to force their elitist will when the deplorables would attempt to thwart them.

In short, the circumstantial evidence shows Left is pleased (e.g, forks over more money to Jill to mount this bitch of a fight than they were willing to give her to run her pre-election campaign) to disrupt this election. Their hope was to run out the clock on recounts (with lawyerly objections) and run roughshod over the meeting date of the Electoral College ("EC"), with the likely consequence of all of one or more states' voters becoming disenfranchised. Even in overwhelmingly-likely defeat they would then further scream how the current EC process (hopefully throwing things into the House and Senate) has elected (in their terms, "a sexual predator") Donald James Trump.

HF

[Hostage]

There is circumstantial evidence that supports a Stein-Castro-Clinton connection.

First, Stein has a worship fetish for Fidel Castro. That’s documented. It’s easy to find confirmation of this.

Second, news reports say that Fidel Castro was severely distraught when he was told Clinton had lost the election and that this news may have brought on a condition leading to his death. The evidence of this is not solid but it did not arise from any conspiracy source nor did it delve into other matters other than Fidel Castro’s reaction to the election news.

Third, the recall petition of Stein was funded substantially by Soros. The evidence of this is circumstantial but is substantial enough to draw a strong inference. Therein lies the connection to Clinton.

The missing link so far is the connection between Soros and Castro, but maybe such a link is unnecessary. Both Soros and Castro have been associated via many of the various groups they back. The Soros Group is known to be plotting between 2015 and 2018 to add 10 million progressive voters of Latino origins and to use front SJW groups to facilitate the establishment of this new voting bloc. This lines up with Castro’s subversion. Both Soros and Castro back the same types of ‘action groups’.

Stein is then doing this out of some bizarre notion that she is a revolutionary akin to a female American Fidel Castro. As a Castro acolyte, she likely knew Castro’s desire to see Clinton as President. Clinton announces she is ‘participating’ with Stein. The money has been coming from Soros. Stein chooses the blue swing states MI, WI, PA that Clinton lost and ignores the states that Trump lost where the losing margin of voters is smaller.

If Stein was doing it for money, she would also include the states that Trump barely lost. But she is certainly working now as an agent for Clinton, why? It could be a unified front against Trump but I think it is more a crazy romantic notion that she’s doing it for the legacy of Fidel Castro. Her worship of him is bizarre and disturbing.

[funfan]

They are having a hearing in Wisconsin at 4:30 today not sure if it still going on now about the full hand recount and Clintons Lawyers joined it:

http://www.channel3000.com/news/politics/judge-lets-clinton-join-recount-lawsuit/42654554