Recounts only taking place in states where Trump won
Paul Joseph Watson
November 25, 2016
Some Trump supporters are concerned that Jill Stein’s recount is an attempt to steal the election for Hillary Clinton after questions were asked as to why the recount is only taking place in closely fought swing states that Trump won.
“This is not being done to benefit one candidate at the expense of the other,” Stein told PBS .
If that’s the case, why is Stein only fundraising to conduct recounts in states where Trump won?
Hillary won New Hampshire, Minnesota & Nevada by fewer votes than Trump won Pennsylvania, but there will be no recount in any of those three states.
While Trump won Pennsylvania by around 78,000 votes, Clinton won New Hampshire by less than 3,000 votes. Hillary won Minnesota by less than 44,000 votes and Nevada by around 26,000 votes.
If this was a fair and impartial effort to recount closely fought swing states, at least one of the recounts should be taking place in a state where Hillary won, but that isn’t the case.
Stein’s recount effort only began after computer scientists claiming anomalies between the electronic voting machine results and the paper ballot results met with the Clinton campaign and asserted that the vote may have been “hacked”.
That explanation also makes zero sense in the case of Michigan, which didn’t use electronic voting machines.
“We are an entire paper and optical scan state,” Chris Thomas, the longtime director of Michigan’s Bureau of Elections, told the Detroit Free Press . “Nothing is connected to the Internet.”
The vote has already been counted twice in Michigan. A quick count was conducted and the results announced on the morning of November 9th. A second certified count  was then conducted, with the final results announced yesterday, with Trump winning by 10,704.
If a third vote count in Michigan, which only uses paper ballots, was to flip the state to Hillary, this would obviously suggest vote fraud not with regard to the original vote, but the recount itself.
Questions are also swirling as to how Stein managed to raise such a whopping sum of money, now over $4.7 million dollars, in such a short space of time given that she only raised around $3 million dollars for her entire campaign.
Suspicions over the regularity and timing of the donations have also led some to claim  that the entire process is illegitimate.
The claims made by the computer scientists who met with the Clinton campaign have also been dismissed by other experts , including Carl Bialik and Rob Arthur, who write that, “There’s no clear evidence that the voting method used in a county — by machine or by paper — had an effect on the vote.”
Trump supporters seem remarkably relaxed about the recount, which is odd given how concerned they were about vote fraud before the election.
Is Jill Stein being used as a proxy by the Clinton campaign to be the face of the recount so as to avoid any kind of backlash? Who is funding the recount campaign and are any of Hillary’s donors or people like George Soros involved?
These questions remain unanswered, but the money keeps pouring in.
The deadline to file for a recount in Wisconsin is today, in Pennsylvania it’s Monday and in Michigan it’s Wednesday next week.
SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:
Follow on Twitter: Follow @PrisonPlanet 
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/paul.j.watson.71