General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy is Jill Stein taking the lead in instigating a recount?
Where's the Democratic Party???
milestogo
(16,829 posts)I really appreciate Jill Stein for stepping up to it. This can only make the Green Party look good, so its a win-win
SHRED
(28,136 posts)milestogo
(16,829 posts)She has not stepped up to do this, although she knows about it. John Kerry and Al Gore did not fight for the presidency when it was stolen out from under them. I can't think of a better explanation than that they were worried about how it would make them look.
All presidential candidates tend to forget it's about US, not about THEM.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Most of the American people prefer her.
However, the outdated rules of the electoral college deny her what should be hers.
Someone has to do it, might as well be Jill. Her name is mud, she gets to be a hero.
I wouldn't be surprised if some deep pocketed Dems helped out with this effort.
Qutzupalotl
(14,322 posts)The optics of Clinton demanding a recount would look self-serving.
Stein's action is admirable IMO.
bhikkhu
(10,720 posts)...just saying, having spent the last 16 years with eyes open.
Cobalt Violet
(9,905 posts)Democrats don't fight election fraud.
MADem
(135,425 posts)People will want to speak to her about this.
On the air.
It gets her name/face into the media. In terms of a media buy, this is a good investment on her part.
The fact that she is benefitting another candidate is secondary, but it creates a warmer feeling for her. She's quite vilified in some quarters, and deservedly so.
Stein, Flynn, Putin break bread together.....
elleng
(131,067 posts)"We are facing something far worse than many people would like to admit. This is not a normal transition of power, and Donald Trump will not be a normal president," Reich told Rolling Stone one week after the election. "I think a lot of people are in denial about how bad this all is or could be or will be. A lot of people want to normalize this. It is not normal."
"This requires a completely different kind of politics in response, and the Democratic Party needs to think at a much, much larger and more ambitious level than a lot of the Democrats I've been talking to over the last week have been."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016171341
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)the DNC needs to be cleaned up.
Marr
(20,317 posts)No one has bought their con game for a long time now.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)Actually, in a way it is. We have 2018 to deal with. But if we could get a Reich movement to build an '18 pre-movement...?
elleng
(131,067 posts)Of course, there will quickly be the 'age' argument; he was born in 1946. Can't have THAT, can we?
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)I was born in 1962. I often think of myself as younger than I really am, but would have still sworn he was around my age.
But then I suppose 70 became the new 60 when he-who-must-not-be-named was elected.
I joke a bit. However, Reich excites me almost as much as Obama did. More so at a purely cerebral level.
The worst thing Obama ever said was along the line of, "I don't really know economics that well". Everything he said about economics was spot on. But he admitted to not trusting himself. So he hired the "best and brightest", who disagreed with everything he said, then left the economy to them. But to be defined as the "best and brightest" today, you have to be solidly rightwing. Because they get to define what is best and brightest.
Mind you, his people did not fuck it up. Which is perfectly fine when things are good. But he did not inherit good. He had the opportunity to do a lot better than good.
'Deer in headlights' is not an option. Not from people who are supposed to serve the people who voted for them more than they serve elitist rich donors & powerful lobbyists who speak of many of us as 'flyover country.'
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)Let's hope the DNC understands what is at stake.
JHan
(10,173 posts)He was too dramatic this year , I didn't agree with him on a lot of things.
elleng
(131,067 posts)Really?
JHan
(10,173 posts)That's dangerous.
Sorry, I never bought into Sander's rhetoric and Robert backing it up and I'm ashamed so many of these ideas went unchallenged by Democrats. It's still a sore point with me.
elleng
(131,067 posts)and unfortunately, imo, his ideas were mistakenly challenged and not adopted.
JHan
(10,173 posts)1) Free College is no kind of serious solution and subsidies tend to make the situation worse. Vox did a good write up on this: http://www.vox.com/2016/7/22/12254046/myths-higher-education-crisis-debt-loans-free-tuition
2) Trade Deals are not why we're losing jobs, advancements in automation and right to work laws that see jobs hop from state to state have a greater impact. Trade was demonized whole year, even Obama was demonized for supporting the TPP. Robert has either become blinded by the effects of NAFTA and all trade deals in general or being willfully misleading.
3) Railing against the "billionaire class" and class envy doesn't impress me. There are a couple things the left has to continue to do- plug tax loopholes, etc, but tackling Crony Capitalism will require the left extricate itself from of its most cherished ideas. Too much regulation can have unintended consequences and impact small businesses. A higher corporate tax also affects small businesses (but to Clinton's credit, she provided some relief options for small business in her proposals) - During the Epi Pen fiasco, Sanders and even Clinton, and Warren were railing on about imposing price fixes, instead of addressing the big elephant in the room which was - How did Mylan end up being the only supplier of Epi Pens on the market? What happened to other companies which tried to introduce pens at half the cost? Too much regulation makes it tougher for up and coming companies to catch a break and gain any kind of competitive edge over well established industry players, but mention "de regulation " and progressives go off the rails.
and these are just a few of my issues with Sanders and his earnest supporter Reich..
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)The US prescription industry is known for its patents and they were trying to expand US copyright law to TPP countries where Malaysia has a thriving pharmaceutical industry that provide low cost generics which the US companies want to push them out of the way under US copyright protections jack up the prices a viola you have a monopoly.
Providing college opportunities would benefit the economy in the long wrong and srudents are long term affected by debt which the government profits off srudent loans which is a problem that needs to be addressed. Do you have any idea how much the government gives away ib corporate subsidies? They wouldn't even need to raise taxes on the 1% if they just eliminated all the corporate welfare.
Arizona became a right to work state in the 80s but Motorola. Arizona's former largest employer, left for China in the 2000s because of PNTR which Bernie Sanders opposed and correctly predicted what it would do which he has done consistently more than anyone else, taking the correct position on issues and accurately predicting what policies would do.
Now Motorola is in Malaysia because they respect US copyrights more than China. Malaysia has a thriving manufacturing sector in electronics.
The rest is right wing talking poinrs I'm too tired to address but when progressives talk about regulation it is for the big multinationals because we have seen over and over what deregulation leads to especially combined with tax cuts lead to boom busts and monopoly is increased. There needs to be regulation or otherwise corruption would run rampant.
Unbelievable you call it "envy" since je could have easily sold out a long time ago and be well compensated for it. He is referring to very specific people that purchase influence in both parties to rig things in their favor while largely ignoring the rest of us but something like providing college which would increase employment opportunities which means more tax revenue and with money to spend that grows the economy. Giving away the treasury to private interests only serve to make the rich richer. Why do you think weath disparity continues to grow? Free trade has something to do with that since businesses could go all over the world to find the cheapest labor while workers don't enjoy similar freedom to find the better paying job.
JHan
(10,173 posts)As soon as anyone challenges the status quo in thinking among the left, their views are dismissed as "Right wing talking points"-- I am anything but Conservative. I am a liberal through and through.
1) College Opportunities -
I haven't argued that college opportunities should be restricted, but the irony in the "Free College For ALL' argument is that fewer spaces will become available but let's look at it closely-
To deal with the problem we have to first correctly asses why College Tuition Rates continued to skyrocket over the last couple decades - Why has college tuition risen beyond the rate of inflation? The New York Federal reserve did a study https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/staff_reports/sr733.html in 2015 which may provide the answer - It showed a connection between subsidization through federal loans and tuition inflation, and this is from their abstract : higher education institutions were "more exposed to changes in the subsidized federal loan program increased their tuition disproportionately around these policy changes, with a sizable pass-through effect on tuition of about 65 percent." As honorably conceived Pell Grants and other fed aid programs may be, the result, paradoxically, ends up being a rise in tuition costs. In other words, for education institutions that depend on students who utilize federal aid assistance, every increase on the dollar in the federal aid cap resulted in tuition and fees rising by 65 cents (on the dollar). In turn, with tuition inflation you end up with higher student debt. And Free College won't really deal with the problem which is why I shared the link from Vox which is hardly a Conservative outfit wouldn't you agree?
Bernie looked to Germany for inspiration for his free College idea - the only problem is Germany couldn't be more different than the U.S. . In Germany, there are jobs you can get without a college degree , jobs that require a college degree in America. Where Bernie is correct is how he assessed a symptom of our problem - in America we treat College Degrees like high school diplomas, cheapening the value and leverage of a degree. We have a greater number of college graduates than Germany, partly due to students pursuing degrees that aren't exactly viable in the market . On the other hand, Germany circumvents the college degree race by providing alternative paths to prosperity for those without a degree by using a vocational pathway through apprenticeships. But these vocational programs in Germany are tightly controlled , as Tamar Jacoby noted in the Atlantic
"What makes dual training work, every manager told us, are the standardized occupational profiles, or curricula, developed by the federal government in collaboration with employers, educators, and union representatives. Every young machinist training anywhere in Germany learns the same skills in the same order on the same timetable as every other machinist. This is good for apprentices: It guarantees high-quality programs where trainees learn more than one company's methods, making it possible for those who wish to switch jobs later on. But it's hard to imagine this level of state control or business-labor cooperation in the U.S."
So there are no easy solutions, we can't lazily adopt ideas from other countries because it sounds good without properly understanding why our problems exist in the first place. We run the risk of misdiagnosing our problems, thus coming up with the wrong solutions thus creating new problems!
2) TPP - there are compelling reasons to support the TPP. .don't just look at the worst case scenarios. No trade deal is perfect, especially a trade deal the size of the TPP. I personally like it because 1) I'm pro trade and I believe trade lifts people out of poverty when done right 2) the TPP has provisions helping small businesses , it also 3) insists that countries in the TPP region comply with international labor standards - this means Vietnam will be forced to unionise 4) It also raises the floor on environment laws, and 5) tackles human trafficking and slavery . If Jason at the Daily Kos can see it, I'll leave it up to you to decide http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/3/28/1480964/-Defending-the-TPP
3) Trade Deals and Jobs - NAFTA's harshest critics claim that the deal cost us approximately 750,000 jobs. Ignoring for a minute the new jobs created by freer trade between US, Canada and Mexico, that may sound like a lot but the jobs made redundant due to Technology dwarfs this number. In fact, jobs started disappearing since the 1970's but let's look at this century: Between 2000-2010 , Technology made 5.6 million American jobs redundant, see here http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-griswold-globalization-and-trade-help-manufacturing-20160801-snap-story.html
Even Salon is coming round to this: http://www.salon.com/2016/04/10/technology_fcked_us_all_the_anxiety_driving_donald_trump_and_bernie_sanders_is_really_about_machines_taking_our_jobs/
. And it continues to eat away at jobs - As manufacturing becomes "smarter", the job market will shrink. We've seen huge spikes in Productivity gains since the turn of this century, and fewer manufacturing jobs- that is the problem which not a single candidate addressed adequately because everyone was high hating on trade deals when THIS should have been the major issue of 2016. it is also why no renegotiation of trade deals or Sanders-like protectionism will stop this trend - in fact the approach of Trump and Sanders will make things worse for us globally, killing our competitiveness and locking off markets to small to medium size business owners leaving only conglomerates with the capital to offset the drawbacks- not to mention the effects of higher tariffs like price inflation.
4) "Giving away the treasury to private interests" - Wall St is the epicentre of our prosperity. Instead of demonizing successful business people and industry leaders, lets come up with creative solutions to address a culture obsessed with growth at any cost. And this will require some form of self regulation, but bring this up and you get called a shill. Self regulation is ideal and the best away to change the culture at Wall St, but self regulation is next to impossible in huge companies- so again the problem isn't lack of regulation and neither should we believe that there isn't the will to change the status quo. The problem is consolidation of companies and occasionally monetary policies which exacerbate and facilitate abuses and underhanded behavior. If we actually address these issues we may get somewhere..
Grey Lemercier
(1,429 posts)I would place them between the Torygraph OP-ED page and the Financial Times here in London or the WSJ in the states.
JHan
(10,173 posts)I am a liberal. (SIGH)
MADem
(135,425 posts)Even when people tell him, in essence, that he's gone too far, he'll keep digging.
And I think everyone on the left needs to calm down, the hysterics aren't helpful. We need to be the sane party. the GOP's batshit craziness will catch up to them if we play our cards right.
yodermon
(6,143 posts)lol
SHRED
(28,136 posts)LonePirate
(13,429 posts)I suspect she feels it will be better for the country to heal in the short term while everyone sees exactly how incompetent and corrupt the new Racist-in-Chief is. She's being a realist and is seeking peace for the good of the country.
Make no mistake about it, though. If the impossible does happen and MI, PA and WI all flip, his hardcore supporters will literally riot in the streets. It will not be pretty.
SHRED
(28,136 posts)shraby
(21,946 posts)give a care about this country so they can take a long walk on a short pier.
SHRED
(28,136 posts)LonePirate
(13,429 posts)The authorities and military could handle the rioting. America would recover and be better off in the short and long term.
If Hillary thought a recount would flip a single state and give her the win, she would probably pursue it. Flipping three states, especially PA, is a longshot for all longshots.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)Don't forget who will own the authorities and the military...
:> ) or rather :> ((
treestar
(82,383 posts)to get every single swing state! I recall people reassuring us that his EC path was terrible, he had to get every single swing state. It's a miracle from his side. A real miracle to his supporters who also likely did not expect it.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)That makes them barbarians and bullies.
dflprincess
(28,082 posts)How'd that work for us in 2000?
LonePirate
(13,429 posts)I cannot imagine the magnitude of contempt Obama has for him yet Obama is still participating in the peaceful transfer of power. He's deferring to a hallmark of our democracy instead of engaging in completely deserving personal retribution.
dflprincess
(28,082 posts)otherwise, how can we claim to be a democracy?
And that would have nothing to do with personal retribution.
treestar
(82,383 posts)People who wanted a fucking revolution should be advocating this to the skies. They were willing to have unrest for that! This would in essence be similar.
briv1016
(1,570 posts)Beartracks
(12,821 posts)... when Dems win (e.g. Obama). But, yeah, they'd be apopleptic if Hillary retroactively wins the Presidency.
===============
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)The low turnout indicates that people were not so motivated to vote for either leading candidates. There is no suggestion that there is a majority far beyond the margin of error who want Hillary to be president. Forcing the alternate uninspiring candidate on us would not get us closer to 4 yrs of good governance.
Even worse, inserting private groups to try to overturn election results is a fascist dream. Taking even the tiniest step towards that kind of privitazing is extremely dangerous.
treestar
(82,383 posts)That's giving in to their potential bullying. If they riot, they can get arrested.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)but somehow, promoting the Green Party candidate and sending her money just seems so DU!
Silent3
(15,257 posts)If she gets some positive publicity out of this, oh well, there's far more at stake here. I don't think anyone here is claiming she is or was a great candidate.
LeftInTX
(25,506 posts)AgadorSparticus
(7,963 posts)Until it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
KPN
(15,649 posts)GoCubsGo
(32,086 posts)Best that a third party initiates things.
emulatorloo
(44,169 posts)Stein is in a perfect position to do this.
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)SHRED
(28,136 posts)You've got to be kidding me.
Land Shark
(6,346 posts)Whoever will do the necessary work. jillstein.nationbuilder.com/recount
Land Shark
(6,346 posts)Land Shark
(6,346 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)JHan
(10,173 posts)HAHAHAHahahHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHahahahahahahahahAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAhahaaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
womanofthehills
(8,751 posts)lots of strange stuff going on in these states.
SHRED
(28,136 posts)Land Shark
(6,346 posts)JonLP24
(29,322 posts)Last edited Thu Nov 24, 2016, 02:20 AM - Edit history (1)
. As a third party candidate she is one of the few people that can demand a recount so with this morning's news with Hillary Clinton unlikely to drop that bombshell she stepped up.
emulatorloo
(44,169 posts)davidn3600
(6,342 posts)....let along been successful in 3 states?
fivethirtyeight says they looked into it and found no evidence....
The New York article reports that a group that includes voting-rights attorney John Bonifaz and computer scientist J. Alex Halderman presented findings last week about Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania to top Clinton campaign officials to try to persuade them to call for a recount. Exactly what those findings were isnt clear. The New York article includes just one example, a finding that Clinton did worse in counties in Wisconsin that used electronic voting machines instead of paper ballots.1 Its not clear what data the group was using to call for a recount in Michigan and Pennsylvania, or if it was looking at data at all: It could have chosen those states because they were the ones besides Wisconsin that Trump won with the smallest margins. Bonifaz, Halderman and the Clinton campaign officials mentioned in the article didnt respond to requests for comment or more detail about the study.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/demographics-not-hacking-explain-the-election-results/
Keep in mind that the burden of proof is on the person challenging the results. So if you think the vote count was hacked, you have to prove that.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)Optical scanning machines can be hacked in similar ways especially with a memory card which is a recipe for disaster with partisan election officials but aside from that these piece shit machines go on the fritz all the time, miscount votes, there is plenty of evidence of them suppressing the vote or falling apart when they're trying to vote. Those two manufacturers are corrupt they changed their name because of their corruption. You should see what they were caught doing in other countries and we have short memories of things they did inside this country.
Let me addess the providing proof though
If the election is hacked, we may never know
The upcoming U.S. presidential election can be rigged and sabotaged, and we might never even know it happened.
This Election Day voters in 10 states, or parts of them, will use touch-screen voting machines with no paper backup of an individual's vote; some will have rewritable flash memory. If malware is inserted into these machines that's smart enough to rewrite itself, votes can be erased or assigned to another candidate with little possibility of figuring out the actual vote.
If the voting machine firmware doesn't match what the vendor supplied, "it's like you burned all the ballots," said Daniel Lopresti, a professor and chair of the Computer Science and Engineering Department at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. "We have no way to confirm that we can really trust the output from the machine," he said.
This election in particular has computer scientists and security experts worried. They are concerned that electronic voting machines, voter tabulation and registration systems will be hacked. If an attack causes a polling place backup and some voters to leave and go home, the vote is reduced.
This may be as effective as voting-machine tampering in affecting the outcome. It may also undermine confidence in the results. Pennsylvania is attracting the most concern. It is a swing state and many counties use touch-screen systems that do not use a paper ballot or produce a paper record -- for the voter to inspect -- of the voter's intent.
http://www.computerworld.com/article/3126820/election-hacking/if-the-election-is-hacked-we-may-never-know.html#tk.drr_mlt
Hacked or not we need an audit of this election because of all the issues they caused, how many oeople didn't vote because multiple machines went down in key states.
These machines are notoriously vulnerable and outdated I can think of a thousand things more secure. Far more easy to hack than an Iphone and without a trace because the software is so outdated so unless they are caught red handed or confessed the only way to determine is if the numbers are off.
I'm very suspicious of states that are entirely electronic with no audit.
I'm tired of Silver and his constant generalizations and weren't his numbers showing those 3 states blue?
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)Thanks for the info!
Land Shark
(6,346 posts)So fivethirtyeight.com is saying they EITHER BLEW
(1) THE entire presidential ELECTION PREDICTION for 2016, (i.e. 538 prediction was wrong and reported vote counts are correct)
OR
(2) 538 has this dumbass article outside their field of expertise wrong, where they fail to understand when legal burdens of proof apply and basically write off the cuff worse than most DU posts.
So given that 538 was either way wrong in their bread and butter expertise, or wrong about their attitude here, I'm saying they're wrong in this article criticizing election integrity investigations.
But If 538 insists on the other option they should close up shop in shame. .
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)I'm sorry, but that's the reality.
If you want to waste money and pin your hopes on this pipedream....that's your choice.
But nothing will change.
NanceGreggs
(27,817 posts)Jill Stein wants it, and needs it.
End of story.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)Maybe but don't you think what the computer scientists suggested had anything at all to do . With it?
I can't imagine she would do this without that bit of news and with information out there on how a recount could occur if the vote isn't within .5 percent with one of the ways the candidates including third parties can demand statewide recounts plus the clock is running out she had to make a choice and she made the right choice here.
JHan
(10,173 posts)She's probably laying turf down for a 2020 run again. What better way than to hijack the narrative - it's less about HRC and more about "jill saving the day"
krawhitham
(4,647 posts)KewlKat
(5,624 posts)Beartracks
(12,821 posts)Heck, Trump even TOLD us the election was rigged.
It's like hiding in plain sight.
==============
PugDadDem
(7 posts)The Republican's are masters of projection. Every "terrible" thing they say Democratic candidates, and Democrats in general, do are the very things they themselves are doing racism, sexual assault, child molestation, deleting email evidence, gaming welfare, etc.
So at the third debate, Trump says the whole thing is rigged and he may not accept the election results. Clinton says that's horrifying (I think that was the word). Democrats (and other normal, reasonable human beings) are outraged, of course, that a candidate would say such a thing. Trump ends up "winning" the election. Guess what? We all just said we'd be horrified if the "losing" candidate did not accept the results. If Democrats say anything, KellyAnne's all over the news screaming "SORE LOSER! EMAILS! BAWK-BAWK-BAWK!"
Granted, I don't want to accept the "results" of this election. Clinton won. By 2,000,000 votes and counting.
So if a third-party candidate, or someone other than Hillary Clinton herself, demands examinations and recounts, good.
crosinski
(412 posts)If Jill Stein does not want to go down in history as someone who helped usher in the TRUMP ERA, then good for her. As a matter of fact, if all she wants to do is pull on some spandex and tie a cape around her shoulders, then I support her in that too. And, if the recount turns this thing around, I'll proudly and loudly support her right to wear that outfit whenever and wherever she wants for the rest of her life!
Here's to Jill!!!!!!!
a kennedy
(29,696 posts)out another woman?? Come on people...... Hillary, Hillary, Hillary. She won it, but they didn't want her to win.
womanofthehills
(8,751 posts)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jill_Stein
colsohlibgal
(5,275 posts)Nice she stepped up to organize this. If she in some part has a selfish motive, not sure what it would be, fine by me. Gary Johnson was not going to do it. These are not normal times, a man totally unfit for that office, who is going to lose the popular vote by over 2 million votes....if we have any small chance of stopping this we must move quickly.
I am quite weary of losing when exit polls showed we were not going to lose. We must quit bring willing victims, we are like an abused spouse who accepts it.
I have little doubt Gore won, that Kerry won, and that Hillary actually won.
And it is time to fight back, to quit bringing a butter knife to a gunfight.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)So I guess it's beyond some at DU.
Response to JNelson6563 (Reply #49)
roamer65 This message was self-deleted by its author.
roamer65
(36,747 posts)1876 redux?
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)Privately funding vote counting after the fact leads to privatizing elections and competing experts wreaking havok. This is a dumb idea for several reasons.
Sienna86
(2,149 posts)If a true loss, the possible repercussions would be too great. Trump would resurrect the idea of criminal charges, etc. Better someone else sponsors the idea.
JHan
(10,173 posts)Or did Jill finally realise HRC is not worse than Trump?
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)boston bean
(36,223 posts)Better to have a party who does not seems to have interest in overturning results. But is looking fo election integrity by doing this recount.
Does that explanation satisfy you?l
oberliner
(58,724 posts)It is sad that so many Democrats are willing to turn over money to this person who actively and aggressively fought against us throughout the election, with no accountability for where that money will go.
womanofthehills
(8,751 posts)Keep your money but I have sent mine and will send more.
Vinca
(50,301 posts)mountain grammy
(26,644 posts)He says no charges for Hillary, don't bet on it. I don't trust anything he says.
I do believe there should be an election audit and donated to the cause, but, realistically, I'm not optimistic.
LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)of power, and thinks being statesman like is better than finding the truth.
Russian. hacked. emails.
quaker bill
(8,224 posts)seriously, think about it. If it works and the results are overturned, Jill Stein becomes a household name, and lord only knows, head of the EPA or something... If it fails, she at least will have ducked the Nader fate, and have fought the "good fight". As a bonus, she has landed millions in donations, people she will attempt to tap again moving forward.
Everything about this is all upside for Ms. Stein.
Hillary on the other hand would most surely face some bogus prosecution if she ran this and came up short. Trump would surely pull the trigger, and a complete lack of evidence has never slowed these guys down.