The Michigan Court of Appeals agreed that Jill Stein is not an aggrieved candidate and the recount must stop.

The issue hasn't been completely settled - you shouldn't post misleading statements.

Despite dueling court rulings, Michigan recount keeps going

A federal appeals court upheld the Michigan recount that's been under way since Monday in an opinion issued late Tuesday, just moments before a state appeals court issued an opinion saying the recount should never have been allowed to begin.

The dueling appellate opinions set up further proceedings before U.S. District Judge Mark Goldsmith, who ordered the recount to begin Monday, two days before state officials had scheduled it to start.

I find it ironic that Trump is criticizing this recount effort when he would have done the same thing had he lost.

The issue hasn't been completely settled -

You are correct. The opinions were issued "moments" apart and the author seemingly did not know the other decision was being issued.

I find it ironic that you think that you always know exactly what Trump would and would not have done.

I find it ironic that you think that you always know exactly what Trump would and would not have done.

As you may recall, Trump is quoted as saying he would accept the results "if I win".

It's a reasonable conclusion to say he would have demanded a recountd if he had lost.

You are making an assumption.

truthfeed.com

Interesting that the site you like to post articles from has a real grasp on the "fake news" meme that is being pushed by leftists in reaction to Trump's win.

Why aren't you yet able to comprehend that simple fact?

VIDEO : MSBNC Mourns the Death of Mainstream Media, Calls for Censorship of Indie Media that Defeated Them

The bubble dwellers, none of whom have clearly anything beyond a cursory idea of the substance of the PizzaGate scandal, provide evidence of the nature of the problem. The fact that all of them dismiss it as being a totally unsubstantiated conspiracy theory having never bother to investigate it themselves (hmmmm....that sounds a lot like you) is precisely the problem with the mainstream media.

They claim it’s made up completely out of whole cloth by nefarious rumor-mongers when there is actually quite a bit of evidence that something is going on, at least enough to justify an investigation. Journalists are supposed to investigate, Mika, Joe and the rest of you blabber-mouths. Cultivating a little curiosity as a compliment to blind, uninformed decision rendering might prove worthwhile for the pontificating propagandists gathered around the table.

These are the same people who insisted on a daily basis that there was nothing to the Hillary Clinton emails. They are the purveyors of fake news, the last people who should be casting judgment and dispersions upon others for doing the job they refuse to do. They are paid to sound like they know what they’re talking about and ignore things that are to be kept hidden on behalf of those in power.

Conclusions are reached only after someone makes certain assumptions of the meaning of the reasons.

The fact remains that Trump is quoted as saying he would accept the results "If I win".

Anyone with a brain (I guess that leaves you out) would take that to mean that he would contest the results if he had lost.

The fact remains that Trump is quoted as saying he would accept the results "If I win".

Anyone with a brain (I guess that leaves you out) would take that to mean that he would contest the results if he had lost.

Nope, anyone who has followed Trump would NEVER take that to mean he would contest the results if he had lost.

Anyone with a brain (that definitely leaves you out) is smart enough to know by now that TRUMP is totally UNPREDICTABLE.

You must learn that YOU simply cannot predict or assume what Trump will say or do at anytime. He has made that perfectly clear in his book.

His own words reflect that.

BTW, have you called Donald yet to inform him that he has been employing a purveyor of "fake news"?

Better get on that right away, "truthseeker".

I stand by my contention ....

You stand by your ill conceived ASSUMPTION.

So typical of you ....

The issue hasn't been completely settled - you shouldn't post misleading statements.

Correct, it has not been completely settled, but the ruling is very significant.

In interpreting State law, the State courts are supreme and the Federal courts defer to State interpretation.

This would appear to resolve the issue of whether Stein is to be considered an aggrieved party under Michigan law.

The Federal court heard arguments and Judge Goldsmith stated he would issue a written opinion. Perhaps Judge Goldsmith will find a way to continue the recount with Stein being a non-aggrieved party.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/07/canvassers-recount/95084542/

Election panel OKs halting recount if judge lets it end

Chad Livengood
Detroit News Lansing Bureau
5:01 p.m. EST December 7, 2016

Lansing — Michigan’s Board of State Canvassers on Wednesday ordered elections officials to halt the presidential recount on Thursday morning if a federal judge allows the statewide recount to end.

The panel of two Republicans and two Democrats voted 3-1 on a motion that could pause the recount in the event Detroit U.S. District Judge Mark Goldsmith lifts his previous order that forced the recount to begin mid-day Monday.

The Board of State Canvassers has a 9:30 a.m. meeting Thursday and the order was designed to prevent election workers from starting to recount ballots Thursday morning in more than 30 counties if there’s a likelihood that the board will vote to end the recount altogether.

[...]

http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=48968.