28 November 2016

Clinton is not pushing for an audit

A rare post, and a rarer topical one without any snark or attempts at humor.

Hillary Clinton and her team is NOT 'pushing for', 'supporting', or otherwise taking part in the effort to have any states electoral results audited and/or recounted.

They are going to participate in any recounts that occur, and they pretty much have to simply because their opponents are going to be involved. But to claim that this means they're part of the push for recounts is at the best misplaced enthusiasm.

And yet a lot of sites, including the Guardian and even Snopes, are talking about Clinton's sudden reversal, based on this post by Marc Elias on Medium.

The post starts out by rejecting the necessity of a special effort to recount these states, and repeats that, good and hard, with details as to why it's not necessary, for several paragraphs. Then it finally makes the most lukewarm announcement possible that now that a recount has been initiated they will participate, and if a recount happens in the other states, they will participate there as well.

Because we had not uncovered any actionable evidence of hacking or outside attempts to alter the voting technology, we had not planned to exercise this option ourselves, but now that a recount has been initiated in Wisconsin, we intend to participate in order to ensure the process proceeds in a manner that is fair to all sides. If Jill Stein follows through as she has promised and pursues recounts in Pennsylvania and Michigan, we will take the same approach in those states as well. We do so fully aware that the number of votes separating Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the closest of these states — Michigan — well exceeds the largest margin ever overcome in a recount. But regardless of the potential to change the outcome in any of the states, we feel it is important, on principle, to ensure our campaign is legally represented in any court proceedings and represented on the ground in order to monitor the recount process itself.

That's all. Participation, if and when recounts occur, to cover their legal behinds.

What does this participation entail?

According to the New York Times, this won't involve any material support, but be limited to paying for the presence of their lawyers to monitor the process.

This is basically the minimum level of engagement they could possibly take. This is hardly a reversal. It is not support for Jill Stein's efforts. It is not endorsement nor is it pushing for the recount.

Now... they may take a stronger position on the recount in the future, but as of the morning of the 28th of November, 2016 this is as far as they have gone.

No comments:

Post a Comment