[Jill Stein is after] splitting of electors between Clinton and Trump in three states Trump won. The electoral college must pick on a certain date — but if the three states agree that the elections are as yet undecided — electors will have to be chosen by some other criterion — a split or something else.  This will give Clinton victory regardless of whether a recount would award Trump or not.  This was planned by theoreticians — not by Jill Stein.  Stein is simply using this trick because it really will elect Clinton if the states in question agree that the election is undecided.  — Dick Eastman

Dick Eastman, M.S., M.A.  – Defeated Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein has planned and gotten big money for a move that stresses the Constitution by having the election undecided before the date the electoral college must vote. To avoid this crisis the electors of those states may be allowed to vote the conscience — to be bought or otherwise influenced — to vote Clinton. Stein was a Green to keep greens from putting out a viable candidate. Johnson was a Libertarian to keep Libertarians from putting out a viable alternative. This move proves the case. It is a plan — not for a late recount — not to throw the election to the House for a decision (there is not third candidate with electoral votes).

It is rather to force the Electors of those states to go the electoral college uncommitted so they can vote for whom the personally prefer. No other solution is possible to the trap Stein and Clinton have prepared. The Establishment knew that this move would not work coming from Clinton — it had to be someone else. The states must reject because Stein has no standing for such a request. Only Clinton does because only Clinton and her running mate and the DNC are affected by the possible alternative outcome.

Jill Stein’s plan to distract Trump from an orderly transition period. “Her lawyers wait until the last 90 minutes to file actions challenging close state election outcomes. This does not allow enough time to complete a recount meaning those states’ electoral votes cannot be rewarded which means that neither Trump nor Clinton clinches 270 so the outcome is still up in the air — But this would not put the decision upon the House because neither Johnson nor Stein nor any other candidate got even one electoral vote. What it would mean would be that the decision for president would be held up until the recounts were completed — throwing Trump off on his preparation for assuming the presidency.

The justification for a recount however is lacking. Votes with voting machines went more for Trump than did states with write-in balloting format. This of course [makes it much more likely] that the write-in balloting was tampered with for Clinton  than the voting machines rigged by Trump who was an outsider working against the establishment of both parties.

The states should reject these petitions out of hand.

Dick Eastman M.S., M.A.
Yakima, Washington

SF Source BATR Nov. 2016

[widget id=”text 44″]