Exclusive Stein just called Green Party filing for recount

[Nordic]

.

"Democrats, led by nominee John Kerry, were silent in response to these complaints."

-- they're not exactly leading the charge now either, eh?

and WHY is that? Rhetorical, but also telling.

Because the morning of the election, Hillary was notified that she was not being selected. They immediately cancelled her fireworks show.

[Wombaticus Rex]

Holy shit, she did - the day before.
http://gothamist.com/2016/11/07/clinton ... ory_fi.php

NYPD: Clinton Campaign Canceled Election Night Fireworks Display
BY REBECCA FISHBEIN IN NEWS ON NOV 7, 2016 11:44 AM

Hillary Clinton was supposed to ring in her potential victory with a fireworks display over the Hudson River tomorrow night, but according to the NYPD, the display's been canceled. WHAT DO THEY KNOW THAT WE DON'T KNOW? HAVE YOU REFRESHED FIVETHIRTYEIGHT IN THE PAST 10 SECONDS?

The NYPD announced the canceled fireworks at a press conference on Election Day security this morning, noting that the campaign did "have a permit for fireworks, but at this point we believe the fireworks were canceled." TMZ reports that the campaign called the Coast Guard on Thursday—two days after the NY Post first reported on the planned two-minute display—to nix them.

I would need to see about five more mysterious tells like that before I believed she was informed she'd lose in advance, though.

[82_28]

Holy shit. Weird. I know an explosives guy and I used to pick his brain about how he set up fireworks shows and shit. It ain't cheap. So just set it up and then break it down? I guess. But the timing is weird as hell.

[tapitsbo]

A tiny bit like the times square replica of the Ba'al gate from Palmyra that was announced and then canceled...

[Morty]

The way Wolf Blitzer was holding out until the last minute on election night, as if he believed there could be no other outcome than a Hillary win, and that someone would arrive at the last minute and announce that fortunes were turning and Hillary is probably gonna take it out...

The way Hillary sent Podesta down to let everyone know she wasn't going to make an appearance on election night. I have a scene running through my head, Hillary, ropeable, yelling at Podesta to "get down there you c*@&sucker and you tell them I'm not saying anything til morning!!"

My hunch is Hillary found out on election night that she hadn't been selected, and it was a brutally rude shock to her, given how unpalatable Trump would obviously be as the PR man of the ruling layers. Edit: They may have warned her beforehand that she was no longer a dead certainty to win, but she still would have found it impossible to believe that they'd go with Trump.

Maybe they cancelled the fireworks with the excuse that it had been such a divisive campaign, having a fireworks celebration would be "rubbing the losers nose in their loss"?

[Ah, a little bit of talking out of one's arse does wonders for the constitution!]

[seemslikeadream]

Cybersecurity Expert Bruce Schneier: American Elections Will Be Hacked
STORYNOVEMBER 30, 2016Watch iconWATCH FULL SHOW

Bruce Schneier
security technologist and fellow at Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society.


American Elections Will Be Hacked (NY Times)
"American Elections Will Be Hacked.’" That’s the title of a recent article in The New York Times by our next guest, the leading cybersecurity and privacy researcher Bruce Schneier. Schneier warns, "Our newly computerized voting systems are vulnerable to attack by both individual hackers and government-sponsored cyberwarriors. It is only a matter of time before such an attack happens." Schneier is a security technologist and fellow at Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society and author of the book "Data and Goliath: The Hidden Battles to Collect Your Data and Control Your World."

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman. "American Elections Will Be Hacked." That’s the title of a recent op-ed in The New York Times by our next guest, the leading cybersecurity and privacy researcher Bruce Schneier. He warns, quote, "our newly computerized voting systems are vulnerable to attack by both individual hackers and government-sponsored cyberwarriors. It is only a matter of time before such an attack happens." Bruce Schneier is a security technologist, fellow at Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society, author of the book Data and Goliath: The Hidden Battles to Collect Your Data and Control Your World.

Bruce, welcome back to Democracy Now! Talk about your concerns today in this aftermath of the 2016 election.

BRUCE SCHNEIER: A lot of our voting machines are basically computers. And especially computers without any paper audit trail are vulnerable to hacking and errors in ways that can’t be corrected. And my worry is that we’re going to have an election where there is credible evidence of a hack, and we’re literally not going to know the actual results and have no way to figure it out. And that, right now, will be disaster for our system.

AMY GOODMAN: So you said your concern is "we’re going to have an election." Do you think we had one?

BRUCE SCHNEIER: My guess is no. It’s sort of interesting to watch these three states. There’s research that shows there are statistical—

AMY GOODMAN: You mean Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan?

BRUCE SCHNEIER: Yeah, those three states. So there are anomalies in the results that seem to correlate with voting machine type. Now, that is a red flag for hacking and something we should look at, and we should definitely research this. My guess is it isn’t. My guess is there’s some confounding variable that the machine type is correlated to demographic in some way. But we don’t actually know until we do the research. My worry right now is the recount. That process was designed decades ago, when it meant counting the ballots slower and more carefully. And it didn’t mean looking at the voting machines for forensic evidence of hacking. So I’m not convinced that even after this recount we’re going to know more.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to turn to comments by Alex Halderman, director of University of Michigan Center for Computer Security and Society and one of the leading computer scientists and election lawyers calling for a recount. He indicated a hack of the vote was, quote, "plausible," but went on to emphasize, quote, "The only way to know whether a cyberattack changed the result is to closely examine the available physical evidence—paper ballots and voting equipment in critical states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania." Your thoughts?

BRUCE SCHNEIER: So, he’s 100 percent correct. That’s the only way to know. And when there are paper ballots, if it’s an optical scan machine, where you vote on paper, and that paper ballot is your backup, you can look at that paper. And that will give you the actual vote. In states that don’t have that, that are just touchscreen machines like ATM machines, there’s going to be really no way to figure out original voter intent. There, the only thing you can do is forensically analyze the machines, the network. And while that may lead to evidence of hacking, it won’t tell you what the original votes are. Now, that process can take weeks. It can take months. It’s not a process we’re really ready for. We expect to know the winner now.

AMY GOODMAN: In Wisconsin, Clinton received 7 percent fewer votes in counties that relied on electronic voting machines compared with counties that used optical scanners and paper ballots. That was a piece in New York magazine. Your thoughts?

BRUCE SCHNEIER: So that’s exactly correct. So that is the red flag that could indicate hacking. It could indicate other things, too. There was a complex post on FiveThirtyEight.com that looked at that data and had a theory that it was demographics that was the deciding factor, and not hacking. That could be true, too. So, we have a problem right here. Right? Elections serve two purposes. The first is to choose the winner, but the second is to convince the loser. The losing side has to believe the election is fair; otherwise, it’s not legitimate. Things like this delegitimatize the election. And that’s why we need to investigate them and come up with the actual answer. And if there was hacking, we need to know about it. If there wasn’t, we need to know about it. And—

AMY GOODMAN: I want to turn—

BRUCE SCHNEIER: —Stein made a really important point. There needs to be rules in place beforehand, because now, when the election is over, battle lines are drawn. It’s Trump versus Clinton. And you’re going to pick the process that will have your side win. Rewind this a month, and it would be really easy to come up with a set of rules that everyone agrees on. So we need those rules in place before we vote, when we don’t know which way the hacking or the demographics or the miscount might go.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to turn to a report produced by Rolling Stone investigative reporter Greg Palast. He was in Ohio just before the election. Palast spoke to election law attorney Bob Fitrakis about problems with the voting machines. We hear first from Fitrakis.

ROBERT FITRAKIS: Well, machines now can actually take a ballot image, in the sequence of every single one cast, to eliminate fraud if somebody tampers with the paper ballots.
GREG PALAST: There’s only one problem.
ROBERT FITRAKIS: They’ve decided to turn off the security.
GREG PALAST: Election law attorney Robert Fitrakis represents Republicans and Democrats. He just discovered that the photo image and audit protection functions have literally been shut off.
ROBERT FITRAKIS: So they bought state-of-the-art equipment and turned off the security.
AMY GOODMAN: So that’s Bob Fitrakis in Greg Palast’s piece. Bruce Schneier, your response?

BRUCE SCHNEIER: So it’s hard to know how bad that is. If they’re photographing the paper and the paper still exists, then we’re OK, if the photograph is just a backup of the paper. If the paper is destroyed, then that’s an absolute disaster. So, not knowing more, I can’t tell. But something else is brought up in this that’s real important, that we can’t lose sight of, I think, the real issue here, which is not the hacking in those three states, but the voter suppression everywhere. And whether it is voter ID requirements or closing polling places in poor neighborhoods or reducing early voting or purging voter rolls, there’s a concerted effort in the United States to deny people the right to vote. I think that’s the real issue. And that has probably caused a lot more discrepancy in the vote versus the will of the people than machines, even though machines can be a disaster.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to turn to Michael Isikoff. We spoke to him, chief investigative reporter for Yahoo News, looking at reports that hackers outside the U.S. infiltrated two state election databases. This is what he had to say about vulnerabilities in the voting infrastructure here.

MICHAEL ISIKOFF: In 40 states, we have optical scan voting, in which there are backup of paper ballots, so there’s a safety net there. But there are points of vulnerability. In six states and parts of four others, including Pennsylvania, a crucial swing state, there are electronic voting machines, that are vulnerable, that could be tampered with. There’s internet voting for overseas ballots and military ballots in 33 states, so that’s another point of vulnerability.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s Michael Isikoff. Bruce Schneier?

BRUCE SCHNEIER: Well, he’s exactly correct. There’s really three areas of vulnerability we have to worry about. The first is the voting rolls. If someone can hack those rolls and change them or delete them, they could cause real problems on Election Day. The second is the machines. And, yes, optical scan machines are the most secure and the safest. And that’s a paper ballot that you fill in ovals, and it’s processed, and the paper is your backup. The third area of vulnerability is the tabulation and the counting. And we don’t talk about that much, but after everyone votes, there’s a system of consolidating all of those results from every machine higher and higher into a single state result. And there’s vulnerability there. So, yes, those three areas are all rife for hacking, not just from foreign powers, but from hackers everywhere. I mean, these aren’t things that are only the purview of nation states. Our computer systems are so vulnerable that even amateurs can, in some cases, do it.

AMY GOODMAN: Bruce Schneier, we want to thank for being with us, security technologist, fellow at Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society. We’ll link to your piece in The New York Times that’s headlined "American Elections Will Be Hacked." He’s also author of Data and Goliath: The Hidden Battles to Collect Your Data and Control Your World.

That does it for our broadcast. And we hope, if you’re in the area, you will join us Monday, December 5th, at Riverside Church in New York City for our 20th anniversary celebration, featuring Harry Belafonte, Noam Chomsky, Patti Smith, Danny DeVito, Danny Glover, Tom Morello, Juan González and many more. You can visit democracynow.org for details.

And we have a job opening. Democracy Now! is hiring a senior TV producer. We also are looking for interns and fellows. Go to democracynow.org.
https://www.democracynow.org/2016/11/30 ... _elections

[seemslikeadream]

Judge orders immediate start of Michigan recount
Paul Egan and Tresa Baldas, Detroit Free Press 6:53 a.m. EST December 5, 2016


A computer science professor from the University of Michigan explains how a Michigan recount filed by Jill Stein's campaign could reveal tampering with voting machines. WZZM

DETROIT — A federal judge early Monday morning ordered a recount of Michigan's presidential ballots to begin at noon on Monday, and for the state to "assemble necessary staff to work sufficient hours" to complete the recount by a Dec. 13 federal deadline.

Lawyers for Green Party candidate Jill Stein urged the action in an emergency request, and U.S. District Judge Mark Goldsmith held a rare Sunday hearing in federal court. It lasted three hours, and Goldsmith issued a written opinion just after midnight Monday morning.

Goldsmith said a state law requiring a two-business-day waiting period to start the recount probably violates voting rights. Stein has shown "a credible threat that the recount, if delayed, would not be completed" by Dec. 13 — the federal "safe harbor" deadline to guarantee Michigan's electoral votes are counted when the electoral college meets Dec. 19.

"With the perceived integrity of the presidential election as it was conducted in Michigan at stake, concerns with cost pale in comparison," Goldsmith said in his opinion.

In ordering the recount to begin at noon Monday, rather than Wednesday morning under the two-day waiting period the state planned to observe, Goldsmith ordered the recount, once started, "must continue until further order of this court."

There was no immediate word on an appeal to the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Stein filed suit against state election officials in federal court in Detroit late Friday to expedite the recount, the latest in a slew of lawsuits over her request for a recount of Michigan's presidential election vote.

Stein is seeking recounts in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania — three battleground states that have voted Democratic in recent elections but shifted to Republican in 2016. If recounts resulted in all three states flipping to Democrat Hillary Clinton from President-elect Donald Trump, Clinton would win the presidency.

“With the perceived integrity of the presidential election as it was conducted in Michigan at stake, concerns with cost pale in comparison.”
U.S. District Judge Mark Goldsmith in opinion
Stein has said she doesn’t expect to change the outcome, but wants to test the integrity of voting systems. She finished fourth in the presidential election in Michigan, getting just more than 1% of the vote. Official Michigan results show Trump defeated Clinton by 10,704 votes.

Stein on Sunday wanted Goldsmith to order the recount she is seeking to start immediately, or Monday morning. Through her attorneys, she argued that a waiting period set out in Michigan law that will result in the recount probably starting Wednesday is unconstitutional because it endangers the voting rights of Michigan residents whose votes might not be counted.

Goldsmith, who was appointed to the federal bench by President Obama in 2010, agreed. "The fundamental right invoked by plaintiffs — the right to vote, and to have that vote conducted fairly and counted accurately — is the bedrock of our nation," he said in his opinion.

On Friday, the Michigan Board of Canvassers deadlocked at 2-2 on Trump's objection to Stein's recount request, which allowed the recount of about 4.8 million ballots to proceed. But under Michigan law, state officials must wait two business days after hearing objections to a recount petition before they can start counting. That is to allow for court review of how the Board of Canvassers ruled on the objection to the recount request. A two-business day wait from Friday means the recount would start late Tuesday at the earliest, and more likely, Wednesday morning.


Stein's attorneys argued that would jeopardize chances to meet a federal requirement that electors be certified Dec. 13, six days prior to the electoral college meeting Dec. 19.

But Goldsmith heard arguments that the delay of two business days is necessary to allow for court review. He also heard arguments that there is a chance Michigan can finish the recount in a timely manner even if it doesn't start until Wednesday morning. And he was told that because Michigan has already certified its electors for Trump, and Gov. Rick Snyder has sent that certification to Congress, there is no risk of Michigan's electoral votes not being counted, unless the recount changes the outcome of the Michigan election.

Michigan Elections Director Chris Thomas testified that if the recount starts Wednesday, state and county officials will plan for a Dec. 12 completion, one day before the deadline. He said if things go smoothly, that is doable, but there are no guarantees, particularly if there are a large number of challenges to paper ballots by observers.


Mark Brewer, an attorney for Stein, later argued there is no way of knowing whether the recount can get done or not.

In his opinion, Goldsmith agreed that if the recount did not start until Wednesday, the chances of completion by Dec. 13 were in doubt. "The best he could say was that 'We'll make a run at it,' " the judge said of the testimony from Thomas.

On Friday, Trump and Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette each sued separately in state court to block the recount. Schuette has asked that his case go directly to the Michigan Supreme Court, with a ruling by the end of the day Tuesday, to expedite appeals.

Schuette also filed court papers to intervene in the Stein federal case late Sunday. An attorney for Schuette said he wants to oppose the idea that Stein's lawyers raised at Sunday's hearing that she is constitutionally entitled to a recount.

Schuette also said in the court filing that Stein should be required to post a bond for the entire cost of the Michigan recount.

Goldmsith did not rule on that request, but he said any costs will be mitigated by the $973,250 fee Stein was required to pay with her recount petition.

Secretary of State officials have said there is no way to be sure about the cost of the recount until it is completed, but that it might cost $5 million, with the difference between the total cost and what Stein paid borne by taxpayers at the county level.


A similar election recount effort is now headed to federal court in Pennsylvania, where Stein's campaign is pushing for a statewide recount of votes in the presidential election on constitutional grounds. The campaign is seeking legal intervention from the federal courts after dropping its case in Pennsylvania's state courts, arguing the state courts are ill-equipped to handle the issue.

“We are committed to this fight to protect the civil and voting rights of all Americans,” Jonathan Abady, lead counsel for the Stein recount campaign, said in a statement. “Over the past several days, it has become clear that the barriers to verifying the vote in Pennsylvania are so pervasive and that the state court system is so ill-equipped to address this problem that we must seek federal court intervention.”
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... /94983372/

[Luther Blissett]

…I didn't know this at all:

The 2004 Green Party presidential campaign of David Cobb and Pat LaMarche led investigations and demanded recounts in Ohio and New Mexico in the wake of widespread complaints about disqualification and obstruction of legitimate voters. The complaints came mostly from majority-black precincts and college campuses, and included allegations of tampering with computer voting machines on Election Day.

Democrats, led by nominee John Kerry, were silent in response to these complaints. A notable exception was U.S. Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), who held hearings on the Ohio election theft and published "What Went Wrong in Ohio." A few local Democrats in Ohio spoke up, but the Green Party ultimately led the charge. Cobb was joined by Libertarian nominee Michael Badnarik, although Greens did most of the recount work. Greens raised the money to file the initial recount and litigated all the issues in court. Democrats and the major media have swept most of this under the rug—especially the role of the Green Party. Greens stood up for clean elections in 2004 and exposed GOP irregularities, while Democrats (who should have learned something from 2000) looked the other way.

Here are additional concrete, tangible results of the 2004 recount efforts:

1. The investigation uncovered evidence that led to the conviction of two Republican operatives in Cuyahoga County, greater caution in many states regarding computer voting and the decision in some states not to use Diebold machines in future elections.

2. It helped to accelerate the growth of the "Election Integrity" movement, which is largely responsible for the halt of the proliferation of Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) machines (which is renowned for "Black Box Voting").

3. The recount helped to provoke a "top to bottom" review of the California voting systems by then-Secretary of State Debra Bowen. This led to DREs being outlawed in that state.

4. New Mexico Green Rick Lass helped organize a citizens' lobbying effort that culminated in that state revamping its voting system: They eliminated all DREs and went to a full paper-ballot system. They instituted mandatory audits. They instituted state-funded recounts in any state races where the reported margin of victory is 0.5% or less.

5. A group of citizens from Minnesota participated as election observers in the Ohio recount, and were so appalled by their experience that they created Citizens for Election Integrity, a nonpartisan organization advocating for verifiable, transparent and accurate elections across the country. Their searchable database of recount/audit laws is the premiere source of information for anyone attempting to understand this complicated legal landscape.

("helped provoke" and "helped to accelerate" are blissfully meaningless, of course -- PR speak)

David Cobb is a fucking wild man, and I would actually expect him to have some higher visibility in the next few years under Trump.

[brekin]

The fireworks thing. I think it could have been cancelled because it would have been a bad scenario if some type of resistance/protest/terrorist incident went down. If Clinton was elected the assumption was Trump would have contested it, and fireworks would have been a huge distraction with civil disobedience going on. Also, Trump and Clinton were blocks from each other in Manhattan, site of the biggest terrorist attack in US history, so a bunch of fireworks going off with the possibility of bombs or snipers or whatnot would have created massive chaos. As anyone who has watched half of the climaxes of any action movie with a presidential parade/election/speech outside knows.

Also, no one like Hilary. If she had won (sniffle, as she should have) too much spectacle would have been hollow and depressing.

[seemslikeadream]

Rogue electors brief Clinton camp on anti-Trump plan

Kasich emerges as the group's alternative Electoral College pick.

By KYLE CHENEY and GABRIEL DEBENEDETTI 12/05/16 12:05 PM EST

Advocates of the long-shot bid to turn the Electoral College against Donald Trump have been in contact with close allies of Hillary Clinton, according to multiple sources familiar with the discussions, but the Clinton camp — and Clinton herself — have declined to weigh in on the merits of the plan.

Clinton's team and the Democratic National Committee have steadfastly refused to endorse the efforts spearheaded by a group of electors in Colorado and Washington state. But, as with the ongoing recounts initiated by Green Party nominee Jill Stein, the Clinton team has not categorically rejected them, leaving the collection of mainly Democratic electors to push forward with no explicit public support from the failed Democratic nominee or any other prominent party leaders.

In a sign of the sensitivity of the issue, former Clinton campaign officials declined repeated requests to comment on the Electoral College effort. DNC officials also failed to respond to requests for comment.

The Clinton camp’s silence follows its cautious approach to another long-shot effort to deny Trump the presidency: the last-minute recount efforts in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan launched by Stein. Stein's aggressive push has annoyed Clinton aides but has also not drawn their outward condemnation — Clinton's top campaign lawyer, Marc Elias, said in carefully chosen language last week that the campaign will “participate” in the recounts, without expanding on its plans to get involved.

"Regardless of the potential to change the outcome in any of the states, we feel it is important, on principle, to ensure our campaign is legally represented in any court proceedings and represented on the ground in order to monitor the recount process itself," wrote Elias.

The electors leading the anti-Trump push say they’re operating without regard to the Clinton campaign’s views and without its assistance. To some leaders of the anti-Trump effort, the lack of formal Democratic Party engagement is an asset as they attempt to woo Republicans.

“We’re really doing this on our own,” said Polly Baca, a Democratic elector from Colorado and organizer of "Hamilton Electors," the group encouraging Republican defections from Trump. “This is something we have to do as electors. This is our responsibility.”

But Clinton will not be able to avoid getting drawn into the Electoral College machinations. That’s because her husband —former President Bill Clinton — is a Democratic elector from New York. Aides to the former president have declined repeated requests for comment on whether he intends to fulfill the role or pass it to an alternate when New York’s Electoral College members convene in Albany on Dec. 19. Baca has indicated that she intends to reach out to all electors — including Clinton — for support.

Another leader of the Hamilton Electors group, Colorado elector Micheal Baca (no relation to Polly), said the group's outreach efforts were wide-ranging.

"Given what’s at stake, we have been outreaching to everyone we can including electors, various members of both parties, and the media," he said. "One of the most inspiring things about this entire process is how we have encountered such patriotism from both sides of the aisle and much willingness to unite for America."

Backers of Hamilton Electors are also preparing a wave of lawsuits challenging 29 state laws that purport to bind electors to the results of the statewide popular vote. These laws have never been enforced or tested, and many constitutional scholars believe they conflict with the Founders’ vision of the Electoral College as a deliberative body. Courtroom victories, they hope, will embolden other electors to join their cause.

All 538 members of the Electoral College will meet on Dec. 19 in their respective state capitals to cast the formal vote for president. Trump won the popular vote in states that constitute 306 electors — easily above the 270-vote threshold he needs to become president if all Republican electors support him. That’s why anti-Trump electors are working to convince at least 37 Republican electors to ditch Trump, the minimum they’d need to prevent his election. That would send the final decision to the House of Representatives.

Clinton won the popular vote in states that include 232 electors. But at least eight Democratic electors are promising to defect from Clinton and support a Republican alternative to Trump.

While Trump's lawyers have been working to stymie the recounts, his campaign has paid little attention to the Electoral College initiative. The same is true of the Clinton camp. While Clinton won the popular vote in states that include 232 electors, she would need all three recounts to overturn the Election Day results to get to 270 electoral votes — an extremely unlikely event.

Recounts aside, there’s little incentive for the Clinton camp to become involved with the anti-Trump effort since it can only result in detracting from her electoral vote total. The only reason to engage at all would in support of an effort to deny Trump an Electoral College majority.

The Democratic electors have already revealed that they’re close to a consensus pick for whom they will vote: Ohio Gov. John Kasich.

Kasich is increasingly seen as the most acceptable Republican alternative to electors on both sides of the aisle, according to multiple electors familiar with the conversations. They note that Kasich defeated Trump in Ohio's primary, that the governor boasts a high approval rating in his state and that Kasich was reportedly under consideration to be Trump's vice president before he selected Indiana Gov. Mike Pence.

"Many Electors are saying that Governor John Kasich would be best for our country. A consensus is beginning to form that Governor Kasich would be best positioned to unite America," said Micheal Baca, in a statement to POLITICO on Sunday. Other electors involved in the effort confirmed this line of thinking.

It’s unclear if Kasich would accept support from these electors, and a top political adviser downplayed the strategy.

"There's no question Trump won enough votes in the states to receive over 270 votes when the members of the Electoral College meet,” said Kasich’s top political adviser John Weaver, when asked about the prospect that some electors might vote for Kasich. “I'm sure the [Electoral College] will affirm this when it gathers later this month.”

Even if no Republicans join the recalcitrant Democrats, eight defections from Clinton would represent more “faithless electors” — members who don’t vote for their party's designated presidential candidate — than at any time in American history. Leaders of the effort claim at least one firm commitment from a Republican elector, though none have spoken out publicly.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/e ... ton-232195

[Wombaticus Rex]

I just read that three times and I still don't get it.

Electoral College vote holders who were going to cast their votes for Hillary Clinton are instead going to support John Kasich and this is an Anti-Trump protest? Can anyone explain this better than Politico?

[seemslikeadream]

all I know is there are people all over this country trying to figure out how to stop Trump the Fascist...maybe one of the ideas will succeed

Still time for a Constitutional Crisis

Hamilton Electors' Declare War on Trump

"I feel that it is my duty to cast my vote against Trump."

By Alexandra Rosenmann / AlterNet December 2, 2016


VP-elect Mike Pence got booed on Broadway last month, but there's a far more frustrating Hamilton story for Trump now.

Levi Guerra, 19, is an elector from Vancouver, Washington and the latest to join the renegade bipartisan group of "Hamilton Electors" planning to block Trump from the presidency when the Electoral College votes December 19.

Instead of supporting Hillary Clinton (who Washington voted for), Guerra will cast her vote for a Republican compromise candidate.

“I feel that it is my duty to cast my vote against Trump,” said Guerra. “Instead, I must vote for the person who I believe will be best for my constituents and who has the greatest chance for unifying our country.”

According to the Hamilton Electors website, the electors are honoring "Alexander Hamilton’s vision that the Electoral College should, when necessary, act as a Constitutional fail-safe against those lacking the qualifications from becoming President.”



Ironically, they're also trolling Trump with his own campaign slogan.

"In 2016 we’re dedicated to putting political parties aside and putting America first," the website reads. "Electors have already come forward calling upon other Electors from both red and blue states to unite behind a responsible Republican candidate for the good of the nation."

“I'm a former U.S. Marine and the core values are honor, courage, commitment. I don't believe Donald Trump has that," said "faithless" Colorado elector Michael Baca.

In terms of deciding a Republican alternative to Trump, “We haven’t landed on that,” Bret Chiafalo, another Washington elector admitted. However, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman and Ohio Gov. John Kasich are among the group's top choices.

In Washington state alone, Guerra is the third electoral college member to become a “faithless elector." Similarly four electors from Colorado have already pledged to do the same. But even seven electors bucking the president-elect would set an unprecedented level of political disgust.

"The last time more than one elector broke ranks was in 1912, and only then because the Republican vice-presidential candidate, James Sherman, died before the vote was held," the Guardian reported.

Washington State has 12 electors and there is a $1,000 fine for electors like Guerra who refuse to honor the election's results.http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/h ... -war-trump

Lawyer group ‘Hamilton Defenders’ forms to counsel Electoral College members, sue states

“We’ve got volunteer attorneys in, I think, now 20-plus states,” one lawyer says.
Corey Hutchins
December 02, 2016
Lawyer group ‘Hamilton Defenders’ forms to counsel Electoral College members, sue states

A group of attorneys from around the country has launched a legal fund to defend members of the Electoral College or challenge laws in certain states that require national electors to cast votes for the presidential candidate who won that state.
The group, Hamilton Defenders, is a nonprofit, according to filings with the Texas Secretary of State.
The name is a nod to Founding Father Alexander Hamilton who viewed the Electoral College as a safeguard against anyone who didn’t have “the requisite qualifications” from becoming president.
Twenty-nine states have laws on their books saying a national elector must cast his or her vote for the presidential contender who won their state. But the lawyers argue such laws are unconstitutional.
The Hamilton Defenders aim to file lawsuits on behalf of any national elector who wants to challenge their state’s law, and to represent electors if any actions are brought against them for voting their conscience, said Elizabeth Basden, a Texas attorney and the registered agent for Hamilton Defenders.
On Dec. 19, all 538 national electors are scheduled to cast their votes in their respective state capitols. Because of recent national attention on Colorado’s nine electors, C-SPAN wants to televise the proceedings in Denver.
Following the election of Donald Trump on Nov. 8, who is projected to win 306 Electoral College votes to Hillary Clinton’s 232, a handful of electors from Colorado and Washington have a launched a movement to see if they can convince enough the other 538 electors in the country to choose someone other than Trump for president.
The Electoral College is the reason a president can win the White House without winning the nation’s popular vote. That happened in 2000 when Democrat Al Gore won more votes across the country, but Republican George W. Bush took the White House when the U.S. Supreme Court halted a recount in Florida, thus giving him more electoral votes.
The framers of the U.S. Constitution set up this system as a check against direct democracy, which they did not trust. Because of it, each state is allotted a number of electors based on how many members of Congress the state has. In most states, the winner of the popular vote, no matter how slim the margin, takes all of that state’s electoral votes. The nominee who reaches 270 or more Electoral College votes wins the presidency no matter who racked up more actual ballots cast.
This year, Hillary Clinton won more than 2.5 million more votes nationally than Trump, but Trump took more projected votes in the Electoral College. Polly Baca, a national elector from Colorado and a former Democratic state senator, says Trump is not the president-elect until the Electoral College actually votes.
Because there are more Republican electors nationally than Democrats, any Trump alternative— should the elector revolt plan come to fruition— would likely have to be a Republican. Electors are either Republicans or Democrats, depending on which candidate won the state, and there are as many electors in each state as there are members of Congress from that state.
Colorado, likely one of the first states that will face a potential lawsuit challenging its state law that binds electors to the state’s popular winner, has nine electors. Four of them say they would cast their votes for someone other than Clinton, even a Republican, if they can gather enough support around the country.
Related: Four out of 9 Colorado Electoral College members agree: Revolt is necessary
This group of electors, four from Colorado and two from Washington, have formed their own nonprofit fundraising organization to raise money for a public relations effort for their stop-Trump Electoral College plan.
Meanwhile, a loose-knit group of attorneys from around the country who have agreed to represent electors formed the Hamilton Defenders legal fund, a 501(c)4 nonprofit based out of Texas.
“The suits that I’m aware of are the ones that will be challenging the binding statutes in as many states as we can muster,” said a Colorado attorney working with the group who asked not to be named because the group is still in early planning stages.
So far that includes a website and a GoFundMe page.
The group’s website includes a quote from Hamilton, who wrote in the Federalist Papers, “The office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.”
“We’ve got volunteer attorneys in, I think, now 20-plus states,” the Colorado lawyer for the Hamilton Defenders said.
As the Hamilton Electors try to reach out to their fellow national electors from around the country and convince them of their plan to thwart Trump, the Hamilton Defenders will do outreach to find any elector willing to stand in as a plaintiff in a state with elector-binding laws, as well as offer support to any elector who might need it.
“We understand all of the risks involved in them coming forward. Some of them have been getting threats,” said another Hamilton Defender attorney from the Washington, DC area who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the issue. “The political fallout some of them face may be significant.”
The DC lawyer said she has spoken with “quite a few” electors around the country and said she understands they have legitimate concerns about getting involved in such a movement. Any elector who wants to get in touch with a Hamilton Defender attorney can do so confidentially on the group’s website, she said.
In Colorado, the Secretary of State’s office is not aware of any lawsuit at this time, a spokesperson said.
http://www.coloradoindependent.com/1627 ... r-lawsuits

Teen becomes seventh 'faithless elector' to protest Trump as president-elect
Electoral college member Levi Guerra from Washington state pledges to break ranks with party affiliation to join renegade group’s attempt to unseat Trump
electoral college map
The ‘Hamilton electors’ believe the 538 members of the electoral college have a moral responsibility to intervene in presidential decision, as founding fathers would have wanted. Photograph: Kim Hong-Ji/Reuters
Ed Pilkington in New York
@edpilkington
Wednesday 30 November 2016 15.15 EST

A teenager from Washington state has become the seventh person to indicate that she will break ranks with party affiliation and become a “faithless elector” in an attempt to prevent Donald Trump being formally enshrined as president-elect when the electoral college meets on 19 December.

Levi Guerra, 19, from Vancouver, Washington, is set to announce that she is joining the ranks of the so-called “Hamilton electors” at a press conference at the state capitol in Olympia on Wednesday.

The renegade group believes it is the responsibility of the 538 electors who make up the electoral college to show moral courage in preventing demagogues and other threats to the nation from gaining the keys to the White House, as the founding fathers intended.

“I stand behind Hamilton electors,” Guerra said in a statement to the Guardian. “I promised those who elected me that I would do everything I could to keep Donald Trump out of office.”

Guerra is one of 12 electors in Washington state who on 19 December have been mandated to vote for Hillary Clinton, the Democratic candidate, as part of the electoral college. Within the arcane structures of American democracy, the election of the president is not direct by all the people, but passes indirectly through the electors who are in turn expected to vote for the candidate that won their state.

Clinton took Washington state by 53% to Trump’s 37%. Instead of following the electoral college norm of voting for Clinton, Guerra will cast what is in effect a protest vote directed at Trump – she will write in an “alternative Republican” of a more moderate political stripe than the president-elect as a way of highlighting her deep fears about his presidency in the hope of encouraging Republican electors in red states to follow suit.

“I’m only 19 and this is my first time being involved in politics, but I hope that my willingness to put my country before my party will show that my generation cares about all Americans,” Guerra said.

Guerra becomes the third electoral college member in Washington state to come out and proclaim they will break ranks with Clinton as part of a protest directed squarely at Trump. In addition, there are four electors from Colorado who have similarly pledged to vote against the Democratic grain as a statement that they see Trump as unfit for the nation’s highest office.

Should these seven electors go through with their pledge to vote against their state’s winning candidate when the electoral college convenes on 19 December, it would mark an outpouring of political disgust at the future president that is virtually unparalleled in electoral college history. The last time more than one elector broke ranks was in 1912, and only then because the Republican vice-presidential candidate, James Sherman, died before the vote was held.

The most recent presidential election in which a single faithless elector cropped up was 2004. Here, too, there were special circumstances as a Democratic elector from Minnesota appeared mistakenly to vote for John Edwards for both presidential and vice-presidential roles (John Kerry was the presidential candidate).

The paradox of this year’s protest is that the seven faithless electors all plan to vote against Hillary Clinton, coming as they all do from blue states, despite the fact that the target of their ire is Trump. So far, the closest that any elector from a red state has come to defecting is Art Sisneros from Texas, who announced his resignation as a member of the electoral college on grounds that he is not prepared to cast his vote for the Republican nominee.


How far is too far for Donald Trump?
Sisneros, an industrial salesman from Houston, 40, told the Guardian that in his opinion, and according to his religious faith, Trump was not fit to be president. “He is not someone who would rule justly or wisely. His track record shows that he is a man of coveting and self-serving – a liar and a cheat should not hold that position.”

He said that he had paid a high price for his decision. Though other electors in Texas had been supportive, seeing his stance as serious and considered, he has received numerous threats against himself and his family.

“I’ve shrugged the threats off as people working out their emotion – I think it will blow over,” he said.

Under the electoral college system, US presidents are not chosen directly by individual citizens but are voted into office by the 538 electoral college electors who are selected by each state. That explains why Clinton is currently 2,307,149 votes ahead of Trump on the popular vote, but lost the election by 306 to 232 electoral college votes (pending the outcome of 19 December).

In modern convention, the electoral college system has been read to mean that the electors vote as one block within each state on a winner-takes-all basis according to which presidential candidate won the popular vote within that state, (apart from Maine and Nebraska which split the vote partly by Congressional district).

But this year’s protesters disagree. Sisneros said that he studied deeply the history of the electoral college and had concluded that the system allowed for each elector to bring their own moral compass to bear on deciding how to vote. “Electors weren’t intended to be pledged or bound to any one candidate, they have their own conscience.”

The seven Hamilton electors take a similar view, that the way the system was conceived by the founding fathers was to allow for the moral intervention by electoral college members precisely as a way of dealing with the kind of existential threat posed by a Trump figure. They cite the statement by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers: “The process of the Electoral College affords a moral certainty, that the office of the President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.”

Bret Chiafolo, 37, from Washington state was cofounder of the Hamilton electors. He told the Guardian that the “founding fathers made it very clear that electors should not elect an unfit president. That’s what I and the other Hamilton electors are trying to do – to work out what ‘unfit’ means and to educate our fellow electors of both main parties about that.”

Along with Guerra and Robert Satiacum, who has also indicated that he intends not to vote for Clinton, Chiafolo faces a $1,000 fine from Washington state for not following party ranks in the electoral college vote. He said he was considering bringing a lawsuit in federal court to challenge the fine, following the argument that any attempt to prevent electors voting according to their conscience was unconstitutional.

Chiafolo predicted that the rebellion could go much further than the seven who are currently on board. He said that by his reckoning there were between 50 and 100 electors across the country weighing up whether to vote their own way as a protest against Trump, though he conceded that his estimate was not backed by hard evidence.

• This article was amended on 1 December 2016 to correct the number of votes by which Clinton is ahead of Trump in the popular vote.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... nald-trump

[Wombaticus Rex]

Levi Guerra, 19, is an elector from Vancouver, Washington and the latest to join the renegade bipartisan group of "Hamilton Electors" planning to block Trump from the presidency when the Electoral College votes December 19.

Instead of supporting Hillary Clinton (who Washington voted for), Guerra will cast her vote for a Republican compromise candidate.

Wow, okay, so just as dumb as I thought.

This is alarmingly stupid shit. These are not remotely rational human beings. This country has gone Full Retard.

#ClownWorld2017

Actual, literal self-flagellation in public is probably ~4 months off.

[82_28]

I hope Levi Guerra hides/moves or changes his name. Vancouver Washington is very near a lot of "hicks" who will probably bother him and his family (I have heard stories -- not of this nature as being an elector). Especially with the Spanish last name. I trust his intellect as I too was 19 once and never voted for no right winger, but he might not be doing a safe thing and probably will have to watch his back. And family's.

[seemslikeadream]

Levi Guerra, 19, is an elector from Vancouver, Washington and the latest to join the renegade bipartisan group of "Hamilton Electors" planning to block Trump from the presidency when the Electoral College votes December 19.

Instead of supporting Hillary Clinton (who Washington voted for), Guerra will cast her vote for a Republican compromise candidate.

Wow, okay, so just as dumb as I thought.

This is alarmingly stupid shit. These are not remotely rational human beings. This country has gone Full Retard.

#ClownWorld2017

Actual, literal self-flagellation in public is probably ~4 months off.

a whole lotta stupid shit on this board lately....Full Retard. ...how do you decide which ones you figure are worth your condemnation?

let me know when someone tries to shoot up the place because of "Hamilton Electors"