A federal judge just effectively terminated a recount of the Nov. 8 today on a presidential election that started three days ago yet failed to reveal fraud or significantly alter results. –Detroit News

Here’s how the ruling went down:

Hallroom chatter in Michigan recount: Some think the judge has been cornered & he’ll have to end the recount; some say he’ll keep pushing.

Michigan recount Schuette’s lawyer John Bursch up first: 6th circuit couldn’t have been more clear, this is case about michigan election law

Schuette lawyer talking about Bush v Gore case; says US Supreme Ct. clear on this: federal courts must defer to state in election matters.

Judge just asked AG atty John Bursch: has the Mich. Supreme Court ruled on this? his answer: not yet. state high court hasn’t heard case.

AG atty Bursch: “This is the law of Michigan, there is no dispute about that.” Unless, of course, Stein appeals to MI Supreme Ct.

AG atty Bursch shifts to Jill Stein, and whether she’s an “aggrieved party.” Appeals ct. says no, so do Republicans & Trump.

AG atty Bursch: purpose of recount law is to change the outcome of the election. Judge: ‘how do we know that?’

AG atty Bursch: Stein’s “entire purpose is to audit the Michigan system.” That’s not what our recount law is for.

Michigan recount hearing: Judge: how do we know that Stein only got 1%; what if she got more but fraud took place?

Judge to AG atty: what if Stein got 20% of the vote; is that enough for her to say she was aggrieved?

MI Rep Party atty now up: the michigan courts have ruled, he says, urges judge to end the recount.

Judge continues to press: is there any court case that says recounts must produce a change in the outcome in order for them to be allowed?

Michigan Rep. Atty: recounts should be used to figure out who should have won the election. “Aggrieved means someone who has been harmed”

“This candidate is not aggrieved in any sense of the word” Mich. Rep Atty says of Jill Stein; urged judge to dissolve ruling & end recount.

Pro-recount atty up: ” It’s quite possible that a recount (in Michigan) would reveal a winner.” Not Stein. she doesn’t expect that.

Pro-recount atty: Michigan recount law isn’t just about changing outcome; can also be used to show fraud in election system.

Judge Goldsmith discusses cost of recount to taxpayers. Asks Stein atty what she thinks of that? Answer:the law “explicitly” allows for that.

Stein atty notes battle not over. “the state court decision is not final.” going back to appeals court.

Judge asks Stein atty: What do you want now? I ordered immediate recount. What’s your issue now ? notes there’s no federal right to recount.

Stein atty: “There is no way of knowing whether fraud occurred without conducting the recount.”

Judge to Stein atty: is there anything about the recount that will tell us whether there was cyber attack or if machinery malfunctioned?

Stein atty: the recount can raise clear flags about whether something went wrong, triggering a forensic audit.

Stein atty just ended. says Michigan law allows for recounts, and that it should be continued. AG atty is now up, in a rebuttal.

Judge Goldsmith asks about voting machine problems in Detroit; says he’s read about problems. AG atty says not as many as being reported.

AG atty: the court of appeals has spoken. there is no right for stein to have a recount. that’s the end of the story.

Election lawyer: “I have not known of anyone to come in and say i believe the system has been compromised or hacked”

Stein atty: It is way to early to say whether any fraud can be ruled out.

Stein atty: Until the Michigan State Supreme Court weighs in, the recount must continue as ordered by the federal court.

Stein atty: Sec of state doesn’t want recount, so don’t trust $5 million cost or other numbers being thrown by folks who just don’t want it.

Stein atty: No bond should be set.

Judge Goldsmith orders recess for 20 minutes. he will issue a written order or rule from the bench: ‘I understand the time sensitivity’

 

 


Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.