Jill Stein for Hillary

by Stephen Lendman

Shameful! What’s going on? Why did her campaign announce its “intent to file for a recount of votes in the battleground states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, leading a multi-partisan effort to check the accuracy of the machine-counted vote tallies in these states in order to ensure the integrity of our election?”

Did she forget Hillary criticizing Trump’s possible refusal to accept electoral results when asked, calling it “a direct threat to our democracy?”
Does she support what war goddess, racketeer, perjurer Hillary stands for? Does she oppose Trump wanting normalized relations with Russia – crucial to prevent the threat of possible nuclear war with Hillary empowered as US military commander-in-chief.
I supported Stein, believed in her, wrote glowing articles about her campaign, her advocacy for world peace, equity and justice. Was I wrong? Did I misjudge her? Is she against what she claims to stand for?
Many times in articles I called Hillary the most ruthlessly dangerous presidential aspirant in US history. Does Stein support her? Want the election reversed in her favor? Why else would she want recounts in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin? Outrageous!
Interviewed by Sputnik News, she said she raised over $3.7 million dollars so far, aiming for up to $7 million to cover all costs, and complete the task by filing deadlines – Nov. 25 in Wisconsin, Nov. 28 in Pennsylvania, and Nov. 30 in Michigan.
A pre-Thanksgiving Day article asked if Hillary intended to challenge the electoral results. In my judgment, Trump won because deep state power brokers jettisoned her as damaged good, too scandal-ridden to serve effectively, choosing Trump instead.
Neither snow nor rain nor gloom of night nor Stein’s misguided effort will change the electoral results – just stir the pot disruptively for some days, accomplishing nothing but shaming herself.
Claiming “we deserve some confidence in the outcome of this election” misses the crucial point.  Hillary as president risks possible cataclysmic nuclear war with Russia.
Trump want normalized ties, both countries cooperating in combating terrorism. That’s the core issue aside from all others – including the nonexistent integrity of America’s electoral system.
Failure to understand it shows poor judgment on Stein’s part at the least – recklessness at worst. And why did Sputnik News publicize her effort? Surely it knows Putin prefers Trump over Hillary. So do I.
Will recounts be held in the three states in question? Doubtful but we’ll see. Either way won’t matter. On January 20, Trump’s inauguration will proceed as scheduled.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected].
His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”


If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.

For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
the pair
the pair
Nov 29, 2016 6:20 AM

just a “left field”/devil’s advocate thought: with the hillary crowd screeching about the green votes “hurting hillary’s numbers” (including krugman – a guy who does math for a LIVING) and all the idiocy in the MSM about russia “influencing/stealing” the election (which, sadly, is lapped up by a lazy public) maybe this is a way to shut those people up? point out that even if two of the states were way off it doesn’t change much?
or maybe stein has bought into the “lesser evil” nonsense and thinks hillary is anything but patrick bateman with a vagina.

Nov 29, 2016 6:24 PM
Reply to  the pair

I’m not sure that was the intent, but if the recount does happen (Wisconsin seems to have rejected the request), it may well have the effect of putting all those “the Russians did it!” claims to rest.

Nov 29, 2016 3:00 AM

Jill is a Yenta, Stephen. What else would you expect. You remind me of Jim Fetzer who was for Obama before Obama showed his true colors. You two should be a little more discerning.

Nov 28, 2016 9:20 PM

As appalling as this is, (and it is!), it should be remembered that (1.) a candidate has to have status, i.e., actually be in the running to have a recount change the result in their favor, and (2.), show that there is some basis for their allegations. Beyond that, what of the other states that Clinton narrowly won? After all, if this is a purely ideological exercise, let’s consider the whole of it.
No, I smell a rat. It is a rat that owns a questionable “foundation” that engages in the quid pro quo trade. This disgusting “election” has truly redefined the word “shameless”. I think I’ll shower now.

Leslie Johnson
Leslie Johnson
Nov 28, 2016 2:50 AM

**Urgent******Latest Update******
BUSTED: Jill Stein cannot request a recount in Pennsylvania which proves her donation request was fraudulent, because there was no recount possible in Pennsylvania.
HERE IT IS: The Pennsylvania filing guidelines. People need to read and distribute this to prevent scammers in the system from breaking the law and ramming an illegitimate process down our throats.
Election filing deadlines for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
******No later than 5:00 P.M . on this day, the SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH must issue an order for a recount or re-canvass if it is determined, based on the unofficial returns submitted by the county boards of elections, that a statewide candidate or ballot question that appeared on the ballot in every election district throughout the Commonwealth was defeated by a margin of 1 percent or less.
******Last day on which a recount or re-canvass ordered by the SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH can be scheduled to begin.
******On this day, candidates receiving tie votes at the election shall cast lots at 12 Noon before the SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH or the county boards of elections, as the case may be, to determine the winner. (If the fact of the tie vote is not authoritatively determined until after November 23, the time for casting lots will be 12 Noon on the second day after the fact of such tie is determined.)
******Last day to file petitions to contest the election of any candidate. (Not applicable to elections of the first class.)
******Last day for the county boards of elections to file with the SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH returns from the November election.
******No later than 12 Noon on this day, a recount or re-canvass ordered by the SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH must be completed.
BOTTOM LINE: Pennsylvania knew about scammers like Jill long ago, when the laws were written, and protected the system.
REMEMBER: Michigan CANNOT BE HACKED. Michigan has a CERTIFIED VOTE. There is NO WAY A VOTE RECOUNT IS LEGIT. And that means ONE THING – there are liars doing it, powerful liars who know in advance they are going to find what they are looking for.
Jim Stone

Nov 27, 2016 9:07 PM

Missing from Mr Lendman’s piece is any acknowledgement that there are real signs of vote theft in this election. Greg Palast has done valuable research and provided tangible evidence here. Interstate Crosscheck, mis-identifying millions of people as suspect “double voters” in order to get them removed from the registration rolls, among other dirty tricks. We also have very suspicious discrepancies in reported results vs exit poll data that are specific to areas where electronic voting machines are used.
There are good reasons to suspect genuine fraud. I agree that Clinton is probably overall more dangerous than Trump and I don’t care to do anything to help her, but at the same time the more structural issue is getting away with stealing an American election. Ironically a recount is bound to fail, since electronic voting machines by design make that an exercise in farce. But the issue of election fraud is real, and is important, and outweighs anybody’s disdain for either candidate. Obviously the even more important issue is that America elections are shite anyway thanks to the ridiculous candidates on offer, and the how and why of that. But let’s start with crimes that can be solved in the short term.
Yeah it might help Hillary and yeah that’s unpalatable. But maybe it’s time to start concentrating on who controls American elections, and how they do it. I haven’t heard any reason to think Jill Stein’s concern is over anything but defending the idea that people’s votes ought to be counted properly. I don’t know that this will go anywhere near the real crime of forced disenfranchisement and vote suppression, but I’m all for getting closer to that crime, and who knows where it might lead? If we start with the machinery of fraud at the voting end and follow the money trail, we find a nest of venal billionaires and an unhealthy octopus of corruption. Palast is well worth reading in this regard, or watch his info-taining documentary.

Thelma Follett
Thelma Follett
Nov 27, 2016 7:47 PM

Poor move on Stein’s part.
I voted for her this time around as I did 4 years ago because there was no other ethical choice.
However, she will NEVER get my support again.
Of course a Trump presidency marks a sad day in American history but a Clinton presidency would mean a terrible reign of atrocities abroad.

Nov 27, 2016 7:33 PM

Seems very dodgy. If Hillary had requested this she would look even more damaged. So get someone else to do it for you (just don’t write it in an email). That’s the only theory I can think of.

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Nov 27, 2016 3:03 PM

Stein’s motives for pursuing the recount are likely principled, exactly as Jerry “Peacemaker” (comment below) suggests, the point being to further expose the utter corruption of the voting process in the U.S. On the other hand, it is doubtlessly true that the ‘money’ suddenly appearing by the many millions originates less from ordinary Stein supporters among the masses than from those among the moneyed class who favor Clinton in the Oval Office.
In my opinion, although there may be subtle hypothetical differences between the likely effects of a Trump presidency over against a Clinton one, meaning that certain cliques among the American oligarchy would fare a bit better financially and in terms of their prestige and influence, overall, whether internationally or domestically, nothing of substance would be different, certainly not from the standpoint of ordinary people, which for me is the only standpoint that matters.
Whether under Trump or Clinton, people will continue to be brutally oppressed and exploited all so that the rich may continue to be rich.
After all, the election is not a bout deciding about the social, economic, political and institutional structure of the U.S., which taken as a whole are the elements of any society that really matter.
It’s not who is president. It’s the capitalism, stupid. In my opinion, Stein is helping to make this all the more apparent.

Nov 27, 2016 12:51 PM

Oh dear. I do hope that the American Greens don’t go the way of the German Greens.
”In 1998, the Greens joined the federal government under Chancellor Gerhard Schröder (SPD).
The price paid by the Greens for entering the federal government was the dumping of their avowal of pacifism. Even before the new government was formed, the Greens voted for German participation in the NATO war against Yugoslavia at a special meeting of parliament.
The former street fighter ’68’ Joschka Fischer was entrusted with the prestigious office of foreign minister in order to overcome deeply rooted popular opposition to international deployments by the German army. Today, the Greens rank amongst the most aggressive proponents of German militarism. They demand the creation of a professional army and support the war in Afghanistan.
The Greens also stand on the right wing of bourgeois politics when it comes to social questions. In coalition with the SPD, they implemented the most extensive program of social cuts in the history of the federal republic.
While Schröder’s anti-welfare “Agenda 2010” provoked tensions within the SPD and led to the split-off of the Left Party, the Greens stubbornly backed his policies. They encouraged Schröder to remain firm in the face of broad public opposition and called for even more drastic cuts in public expenditure.
Today, the Greens are ready and willing to cooperate in government with the conservatives. The first Christian Democratic Party (CDU)-Green coalitions have already been established in the states of Hamburg and Saarland—in Saarland as part of a three-way coalition with the free-market Free Democratic Party.
Under conditions of the deepest economic crisis in three-quarters of a century, it is vital, particularly for the younger generation, to draw the necessary conclusions from the right-wing evolution of the Greens. None of the ills of capitalist society can be overcome with Green remedies limited to the alleviation of superficial symptoms.”
You see this is what happens to radical leftist parties when they attempt to ‘reform the system from the inside” – see the shenanigans of Varoufakis and Tspiras in this respect – and broaden their appeal in order to become ‘electable’. They simply get co-opted by the powers-that-be and enthusiastically back neo-liberal and neo-conservative policies. See the examples of Syriza, SPD, PASOK, the Parti Socialiste of Hollande. In short, they become part of the problem. Everything you need to know about social-democratic parties can be found in the seminal work on the subject: Political Parties, by Roberto Michels. This was first published in 1911, but is as true and relevant today – in fact more so – than it was then.

Nov 27, 2016 12:08 PM

Whatever Stein’s motives, whatever, possibly paranoid, ulterior motives are advanced in the previous comments, am I really the only person on here to believe that, if there are ANY reasons to believe that something may have gone wrong, and such reasons have been advanced in articles on this site, then it is surely in the interests of democracy that they are thoroughly investigated. In my opinion, if no-one can be sure that votes as cast have been in some way manipulated, surely it is a perfectly sensible reaction to find out that appropriate security was in operation.
The security/accuracy of the results is surely quite separate from the consequences that may or may not arise were the results to change. Why are so many people keen to stick with the outcome of the vote as it stands and ignore the fact that it MIGHT NOT represent the true will of those that voted? Why do Trump’s supporters fear a recount when the result of checking could as easily confirm his position as the person with most electoral college votes as it might change the result?
Conflating the principle of doing everything possible to ensure that the vote was not manipulated with whoever might come out on top, whatever that result might lead to, is taking the road signposted towards the removal of democracy.

Nov 27, 2016 1:57 PM

The time to thoroughly review the voting systems was the Bush v Gore election with all the hanging chads and stuff like that. Then the supreme court blocked recounts or checks to force through the election of Bush and pressurised Gore to concede. It subsequently came out that Gore was the rightful winner. Nothing was ever done, it was brushed under the carpet by the MSM for the sake of ‘harmony’ etc.
Why the difference this time round?

Nov 27, 2016 11:50 AM

They were both at it – election fraud that is – and the M$M were silent.
The GOP cheated better than the Democrats – now Hillary, sorry Jill – wants a recount (but only in the crucial swing states) and Soros (and the Kochs?) coughed up their loose change to fund it. Well, boo hoo!
From early indicators – the exit polls didn’t tally with the results in numerous states – which should be a clear indication of fraud in a properly conducted poll – despite the fact that the M$M has been trying to ‘re-educate’ the public since 2000 that the exit polls do not need to tally with the result (which is true – for a banana republic!)
Greg Pallast identified several voter suppression methods. One was Operation Crosscheck – if someone called ‘James Brown’ has committed a crime and is ineligible to vote – everyone called ‘James Brown’ in every state gets struck from the list. Another was on so called “Souls to the Polls” day – where black communities would come together in prayer then go to vote – in their tens of thousands – and find only one polling station open.
Not to mention the dodgy Diebolds, dead voters and ghost machines.
Or that Sanders – not Clinton – was the rightful Democratic candidate (as confirmed by a Stanford report.)
American democracy is a shitshow – the results are a sham – voting is pacification.
So next time an American diplomat – like Samantha Power – stands up and says “they hate us for our liberty” and “they attack us for our freedoms” – feel free to laugh at the deluded witch.
According to another paper by Harvard – American democracy is the (joint) worst in the world. And that’s now official!

Nov 28, 2016 9:24 PM
Reply to  BigB

Amen, well said. Anyone who actually feels compelled to vote for someone who would attest to the honesty of this farce needs their head examined.

Greg Bacon
Greg Bacon
Nov 27, 2016 11:17 AM

I was raised on a Midwest stock and grain farm. For years, we raised hogs and cattle in the same lot. Fed the cows corn, which their stomachs wouldn’t digest completely, so kernel chunks would wind up in the cow pies. And the hogs would fight each other over these cow pies to eat those kernels covered with cow waste.

Nov 27, 2016 8:51 AM

Ethics schmethics.
When push comes to shove (and it obviously has) this is the usual (unmentionable) tribal solidarity in action.

Brutally Remastered
Brutally Remastered
Nov 28, 2016 9:45 PM


Eurasia News Online
Eurasia News Online
Nov 27, 2016 7:59 AM

Is there ANYONE not CORRUPT in Caliphate of Chaos? NO, it is not part of Anglo-Saxon religion and God named DOLLAR! Anything goes and prostitution is just second job of EVERYONE. Eh, those Russians and other barbarians 🙂 We wish you long and bloody civil war – just as many you have spread all over this planet. What goes around – comes around

Kathleen Lowrey
Kathleen Lowrey
Nov 27, 2016 5:25 AM

The idea that Jill Stein supporters have sent her millions of dollars to fund a recount seems… vanishingly unlikely. I was a Jill Stein supporter — I voted for her — but I wouldn’t send a penny to this cause. It could be that the general profile of Jill Stein supporter is quite different, but I doubt it. It also seems unlikely that a campaign that struggled to raise money for the candidate herself over months (and years) would in a tiny window of time raise millions of dollars for a side-project she decided to pursue, especially one that aligns exactly with the interests of the person most left-leaning Stein voters had already decided they could never support. This is quite disheartening; I thought Stein was a lost cause electorally but at least an honest one morally.

Le Ruscino (@LeRuscino)
Le Ruscino (@LeRuscino)
Nov 27, 2016 6:41 AM

Read the evidence on the funding of Jill Stein’s Re-Count – $160K/Hour during day & night !! Suspicious?

Nov 28, 2016 2:05 PM

That was interesting.

Jerry "Peacemaker"
Jerry "Peacemaker"
Nov 27, 2016 3:49 AM

While Mr. Lendman is most of the time spot-on with his analyses, and while he is correct that the deep state jettisoned Hillary Clinton because the can of worms opened were she elected would be historically negative for that same deep state, he may have over-thought in this instance and slightly missed the mark. The oligarchy in power in the U.S. essentially found themselves painted into a corner, their historic covert actions at real risk of becoming revealed on the widest of scales, and were left with no other option but arranging for Trump’s victory.
If those in power wanted Hillary Clinton as president, she would now be the president-elect instead of Donald Trump.
Ms. Stein and Mr. Baraka’s decision to seek recounts is based on a number of factors, including: 1) identifying corruption of the election leading to only 1% Green votes, 2) identifying corruption of the election leading to serious and long-overdue reforms, and 3) exposing how elections have been manipulated for decades by and for the benefit and increasing power concentration of American oligarchy.

Nov 27, 2016 11:22 AM

The curious thing though is that Jill Stein is seeking recounts of the voting in just three states – Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin – which traditionally support the Democratic Party but in the recent Presidential elections swung over to Trump. If Stein were really serious about supporting a recount, then she would support a recount in all states where the voting was very close, regardless of whether Clinton had won the state or Trump had won the state.
I suspect this “recount” is intended to pressure the Electoral College to switch its voting in December to favour Clinton as the President-elect and not Trump, and to disrupt the process of Trump’s cabinet secretary selections.
The other curious thing, as Kathleen Lowrey has already alluded to, is that Stein has raised and continues to raise far more money for the recount than she managed to raise for her 2016 campaign. This gives rise to the question of what Stein will do with all that money if the recounts do not go ahead. Where is this money coming from; what amounts is it coming in; and if Stein does not intend to return the money, what does she plan to do with the money and can the public demand her to make any and all transactions available to the public under the appropriate Freedom of Information laws?

Nov 28, 2016 2:11 PM

“he may have over-thought in this instance and slightly missed the mark” He may have missed the mark intention-wise, but if Le Ruscino is right, and it looks like he (she? other?) is, then the thinking, while overly done, landed in the right spot. On principle, You can’t say ‘Don’t notice rule-breaking here because if you do, it could lead to an outcome we don’t want’. But Le Ruscino provides a link to some interesting facts that put Stein’s efforts in a bad light. That can’t be ignored either.

Jerry "Peacemaker"
Jerry "Peacemaker"
Nov 29, 2016 5:30 AM
Reply to  Arrby

Alleging George Soros is behind Stein/Baraka actions overlooks Trump’s likely Treasury Secretary’s being a former Goldman Sachs executive and associated with the Soros Foundation. It also overlooks Soros’ providing financial assistance to Trump for Trump’s skyscraper project in Chicago. Trump and Clinton represent the same deep state oligarchy who simply changed course in their search for the new “U.S. CEO” after the corruption-infested Clinton’s true colors became known worldwide (thanks to WikiLeaks), and were left with only one option – Trump. It might serve well to remember WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange didn’t address the Democratic or Republican conventions. Mr. Assange addressed the Green Party convention in Houston, Texas.

Dec 5, 2016 3:25 AM

I’m not sure of all that you are saying, but I mostly I agree. (And your reasoning is sound, if I understand you.) I thought the Guardian article “The Latest Wilileaks A Bridge Too Far For Hillary’s Backers,” by Truthstream, got it right. (But I’m not absolutely sure. Trump is just as crooked as the Queen of chaos, really.) I guess it can’t be both something that the establishment, including Soros, wanted and something it doesn’t want.

Sher Khan
Sher Khan
Nov 27, 2016 3:32 AM

Mr. Lendman you are the only journalist who has spoken anything on this topic since the miraculous fund raising by Jill Stein to try and get Killary re-elected. Surely the rest of the both MSM and alternative media is drinking from the same cup that Jill Stein and Killary drink from. Thank you for echoing the voice of a mass majority of common sense people around the world who thought Jill Stein was actually a third choice, now we know she was a safety valve put in by the neocon candidate Killary. Jill Stein is a shameless character who exploited and betrayed the trust of those who had some hope in a better future of the American public and the world peace at large.

Tim Groves
Tim Groves
Nov 27, 2016 3:01 AM

Meanwhile, Donald Trump has spoken, calling the recount fundraiser “a scam by the Green Party”:
“This recount is just a way for Jill Stein, who received less than one percent of the vote overall and wasn’t even on the ballot in many states, to fill her coffers with money, most of which she will never even spend on this ridiculous recount,” he said. “All three states were won by large numbers of voters, especially Pennsylvania, which was won by more than 70,000 votes.”
“This is a scam by the Green Party for an election that has already been conceded, and the results of this election should be respected instead of being challenged and abused, which is exactly what Jill Stein is doing,”

Tim Groves
Tim Groves
Nov 27, 2016 2:50 AM

According to Scot Creighton, Jill Stein’s recount effort is another salvo in George Soros’s latest color revolution. This time it’s the color purple, the target nation is the USA, and Hillary Clinton can be seen as an American version of Aung San Suu Kyi, herself another one of Soros’s babes.