TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Lauren is attempting to locate registered voters at their listed addresses in Nevada. Nevada law requires voters to register where they live, not at a P.O. box or place of work. At multiple addresses, including private residences, individuals with those names are unknown to the current occupants. Some addresses on the voter roll are commercial, including a police department, casinos, strip clubs, bars, and vacant lots. One individual, William Sitton, is confirmed to have passed away while incarcerated. Nevada automatically mails ballots to every active registered voter. The aim is to highlight these errors to encourage election officials to clean up the voter roll.

Speaker 0 states that nearly 70,000,000 married women in the country have changed their last name, but their birth certificates don’t reflect that. In Michigan’s 3rd District alone, 160,000 women could be unable to register simply because when they got married, they didn’t change both their ID and their birth certificate. A 160,000 women in my district alone.

The speakers tour sites in Atlanta that they say show problems with voter registration and housing. They point to 477 P Street Northeast, where they state that, according to Georgia registration rolls updated less than two weeks ago, over 70 people are actively registered to vote from that location, even though the Peachtree Pine homeless shelter behind them was closed in 2017. They question why those former residents remain on the rolls and propose that there should be automatic purges when a shelter closes. They note the property is private, boarded up, with danger and no trespassing signs, and they attempt to enter entrances but are blocked. They compare the 70-some registrations at that site to the expectation that USPS would drop off mail or voter information for residents, and they express skepticism about how such registrations could occur. They also highlight a UPS store at 2625 Piedmont Road Northeast, where they say 96 people are still registered to vote from that address, again asserting this is a violation of Georgia law because a UPS store, PO box, or virtual mailbox cannot be a place of residence. They say the law specifies that where you vote from is where you live and rest, and they emphasize that this is a clear violation. The discussion shifts to the idea that, in addition to homelessness and voting, welfare fraud could be connected to these registrations. They claim that some churches act with advocacy groups to sign up homeless people for benefits and that this could involve checks sent to addresses used for registration. They allege that an outreach program at services and mail lines at a neighboring center, the central outreach and advocacy center, handles housing needs and mail for thousands of people. They report that the organization took in almost $700,000, with a government grant of $25,000 for homeless activities and a private contractor paid $50,000 to write grant proposals to the government, implying that the county maintains a surplus in election budgets and disperses funds to such groups. The speakers assert that the county is not cleaning voter rolls, thereby inflating the number of registered voters. They speculate that if there were many such sites—perhaps hundreds—with around 100 voters each, it would be easy to influence elections, noting that Georgia uses voter ID while contrasting with states like California. They also reference the 2020 election, suggesting that in Georgia, the state was won by a narrow margin and that widespread irregularities in Fulton County could have impacted the result. They discuss potential political leanings, claiming that donations and grants to these groups likely go to Democrats, and that the same organizations could be targeting homeless people to register them to vote and to receive government assistance. The presenters visit another church area at 201 Washington Street Southwest, identifying two lines: one for services and one for mail, implying that the church’s outreach program is involved in registering people for voting and distributing mail to many individuals. They reiterate their belief that the operation is funded by state and federal grants and private donations, and they reiterate that the aggregate registrations at two churches total over a thousand. They propose a broader pattern of “targeting” vulnerable populations for political and financial gain, suggesting potential corruption and kickbacks linked to government funds and political support. They conclude with a strong assertion that the described situation constitutes corruption.

ActBlue changed its donation process in September to require CVV numbers to prevent foreign donations. However, there hasn't been a noticeable drop-off in donations since this change. The information provided by ActBlue was misleading; they only require CVV numbers for new accounts opened after the change. This means that hundreds of thousands of existing donors are still not subject to this requirement, which was not clearly communicated.

Engineers analyzed benefit programs and voter rolls, finding 1.3 million individuals on Medicaid. Thousands registered to vote in multiple states, and some voted, which is a federal crime. This was discovered in a few states and is considered the "tip of the iceberg." The analysis revealed individuals receiving benefits like Medicaid and unemployment, suggesting they are not contributing to the system. Data sent to the National Targeting Center showed "hard hits," including criminals and individuals on terrorist watch lists within this group. The speaker acknowledges that some individuals may also be employed and paying taxes. The organization is currently analyzing the data to determine how to address the situation.

North Carolina, there are significant issues with voter registrations. Since the start of the year, there have been 499,566 total registrations. Notably, 110,462 lack information on race, sex, or ethnicity. Additionally, 149,699 do not have a North Carolina driver's license or ID, and 274,589 have no recorded birth state. This raises concerns about the integrity of the registration process.

We have concerns about mail-in ballots in Clark County, with reports of ballots found in trash cans and multiple ballots sent to one address. Signatures were supposed to prevent fraud, but we haven't been able to verify them. We suspect there are ineligible voters, including deceased individuals and those who have moved. A voter was turned away due to someone else casting their ballot. We're taking legal action to stop the counting of improper votes. Thank you.

Some people may struggle with voter ID laws because not everyone has easy access to copy their ID. It's important to consider the impact on rural communities without nearby copy services. While proving identity is necessary, it should not be overly burdensome.

I felt compelled to share my experience after working at a polling station for the November 5th election in Iowa. During training, I learned that illegal immigrants can vote using driver's licenses that look identical to those of US citizens. If their citizenship is questioned, they can still vote using a provisional ballot, which is later verified. They have until November 12th to provide proof of citizenship, but documents like utility bills do not confirm citizenship. I'm concerned about the integrity of the voting process and who verifies these provisional ballots. It's crucial for US citizens to be informed and vote responsibly. I encourage everyone to educate themselves and engage in the electoral process. This is about raising awareness of what’s happening. Please keep negative comments to a minimum; I'm sharing this to inform, not to offend.

Mail-in ballots are problematic, and so is the lack of voter ID requirements. It's baffling that some argue against needing ID to vote, especially since IDs are required for many everyday activities, like getting a driver's license. Recently, Gavin Newsom signed a bill prohibiting inquiries about voter ID status, raising questions about the rationale behind it. At the Democratic National Convention, extensive identification was required for attendees, yet voting—an essential civic duty—does not have the same requirement. Many people, including Democrats, believe voter ID should be mandatory, but some politicians oppose it, possibly to facilitate cheating. Ultimately, it's hard to understand why there would be resistance to ensuring the integrity of the voting process.

An organization allows people without a permanent address to use its address (201 Washington Street) for voter registration and Georgia state ID, as proof of residence is required. The organization is not a shelter but has been allowing this practice for years. One board member raised concerns that this practice might be perceived negatively due to the large number of people using the address. The organization has not faced any repercussions since the concern was raised. The organization representative stated that people need an address to obtain ID, which is necessary for various activities. The representative recalled being surprised by the volume of mail received at their office for individuals using their address.

Concerns have arisen about noncitizens voting in Arizona's elections, particularly regarding 218,000 voters who were improperly recorded as having provided proof of citizenship. This issue stems from long-time residents who obtained driver's licenses before citizenship requirements were enforced. The Arizona Supreme Court has ruled that these individuals are eligible to vote. Addressing the belief that noncitizens are voting in large numbers will be challenging, and it's likely this narrative will continue to surface after the election, regardless of the outcome.

We allow people without addresses to use our address for voting and getting state IDs. This caused suspicion during the election, but no issues arose. Having an address is crucial for getting an ID, so we've been providing this service for years. Recently, we discovered thousands of people using our address as their mailing address.

Mail-in ballots pose significant issues. Voter ID requirements are also contentious, with arguments against them often lacking clarity. It's perplexing why some oppose having ID, especially since it's required for many everyday activities, like obtaining a driver's license. Recently, Gavin Newsom signed a bill prohibiting inquiries about voter ID, raising questions about the rationale behind such a decision. In contrast, organizations like the Democratic National Convention require extensive identification for their events. If ID is necessary for various transactions, why not for voting, which is crucial? Many citizens, including Democrats, support voter ID, but some politicians resist it, possibly to maintain opportunities for fraud. Ultimately, the lack of voter ID raises concerns about the integrity of elections.

We've been trying to elect good candidates in local elections but keep losing by narrow margins. After a recent election, we suspected cheating, especially after hearing claims about fraud in Detroit. While checking the voting list for a recall, I found friends who had been registered to vote without their knowledge, despite never voting. This pattern continued when I looked into my own voting history after moving to Ohio, where I was also registered back in Detroit without consent. I discovered many others in similar situations, including someone who had never voted but was used in multiple elections. We obtained a massive list of voters from the clerk's office to investigate further.

I went to vote and found out someone with my exact name and birthday in the same state has already voted. When they scanned my license, it showed I had voted, but I haven't. My name is unique, and the only difference was the address. This seems strange, especially since I'm not registered to vote, which might explain the issue. Overall, it feels sketchy.

The speaker describes a situation in which registration and voting can occur even when a person does not live in the country, citing an example involving a brother in Pakistan to illustrate the point. According to the speaker, there is evidence of two or three other people who are outside the country voting, as well as people residing outside of the district. This is presented as a factual observation about who has voted, including individuals located abroad and not within the local district boundaries. The speaker then critiques the online voter registration system by characterizing it as an honor system. The claim is that anybody can enter information into the online system to register and vote, relying on the promise of truthfulness. The process alleged by the speaker is described as follows: a person would place information into the system and then simply click a box stating that they are not lying about the information provided. After doing so, the person would receive an email from the secretary of state or a similar official channel in the mail, indicating acknowledgment or thanks for registering to vote, effectively confirming their registration. Following this registration, the speaker notes a procedural consequence: once an individual is on the voter rolls, they are mailed a ballot for each election. In other words, the pattern described is that being on the voter rolls automatically leads to receiving a mailed ballot for every election that occurs, according to the speaker’s account of how the system operates. The speaker emphasizes a continuity of this process across elections, implying that the mailed ballot would be a recurring consequence of enrollment on the voter rolls. Throughout the account, there is an emphasis on what the speaker views as the potential vulnerability or problematic nature of the system. The speaker asserts that the combination of an online registration process that relies on an honor system, the possibility of registering with false or unverified information, and the automatic mailing of ballots to those on the rolls creates a situation that the speaker finds problematic. The overall narrative connects the initial observations about individuals voting from abroad and outside the district to a broader critique of the online registration and ballot distribution processes, underscoring concerns about eligibility verification and the integrity of the voting system as described by the speaker.

We compared the voter rolls to identify people who had moved but still voted by mail. We excluded cases where someone with the same last name still lived at the address. This led us to find 23,344 individuals who voted from addresses they no longer resided at. Mail-in ballots cannot be forwarded, so the only legal way for this to happen is if the voter knows the current resident and arranges to pick up their ballot.

Speaker 0 states they can help the individual register when they get their ID. Speaker 1 asserts that an ID does not prove citizenship. Speaker 0 says they moved the individual from citizens in 2013 and that they had IDs in multiple states. The individual acknowledges this.

Speaker 0 warns that what you’re doing is extremely dangerous, and questions why it is dangerous. Speaker 1 challenges this by asking why it would be dangerous, and clarifies that they are not saying people are voting in certain places, but that people are currently registered to vote there. Speaker 2 interjects, referencing a recent sweep around Fulton County. Speaker 1 reiterates: they see that people are currently registered to vote in places like empty lots and homeless shelters that closed ten years ago, and asks what the other speaker would do if they became secretary of state to address that. Speaker 0 responds that the other party will have to reply to conspiracy theories. Speaker 1 counters that it is not a conspiracy, describing it as a current situation: people are currently registered to vote there, and it’s possible to purchase voter rolls for $45 to verify this. They insist they are not saying people are voting there, but that people are currently registered to vote there, and they reference Jason as the person who can verify that. They further state they will gladly take the other speaker to see if it’s true, arguing that if someone is running for secretary of state, they are in charge of maintaining the voter rolls. Speaker 0 continues to label the claim as dangerous and as conspiracy theory. Speaker 1 again emphasizes that they are not alleging people are voting there, but that people are currently registered to vote there. They reiterate that it took $45 to purchase the voter rolls, and that the same could be done for Fulton County. They mention specific locations where people are allegedly registered to vote: empty lots and a MARTA bus station, and ask whether the other speaker will address that instead of labeling it conspiracy theories. They reference the existence of a death address, 205 Elm Street Northwest, described as an empty lot that one could visit to verify the claim. They ask whether the other speaker, as an elected official who might become secretary of state, cares about ensuring clean voter rolls in a county considered one of the most important in the United States. Speaker 0 maintains that the other party’s approach is dangerous. Speaker 1 repeats the core assertion: it’s not a conspiracy, it’s a current condition where people are registered to vote in empty lots, a MARTA bus station, and other locations, and stresses that the issue is about maintaining clean voter rolls. The exchange cycles through insistence that “people are currently registered to vote there,” the availability of voter-roll data for verification, and the imperative for someone who could be secretary of state to address the integrity of the rolls rather than dismissing the claim as conspiracy theory.

The speaker discusses the final report released to the public, which reveals that 23,344 mail-in ballots were sent to individuals who no longer lived at the address. Despite this, votes were still cast using those ballots. The speaker emphasizes that this is just one example of irregularities in the election, which was decided by a margin of 10,000 votes. They express their confusion and call for the attorney general to address this issue.

A crowd gathered at the Saint Paul Armory after the governor signed a measure making driver's licenses available broadly, described as “driver’s licenses for all,” effectively serving as a photo ID for all residents, regardless of citizenship. The discussion then centers on how these licenses interact with voting and registration processes. One speaker notes that if someone comes in with a driver’s license, they would receive a photo ID and register accordingly, even if their social security number is incorrect or missing. The concern raised is whether that person, after obtaining a driver’s license, could then cast a vote despite incomplete registration information. The dialogue explores the potential for a non-citizen who possesses a driver’s license to participate in elections. In response, another participant—referred to as the chair—addresses the procedure for handling incomplete registrations. The chair explains that the designation on the roster for someone whose registration is incomplete can be resolved if the person presents an acceptable identification document. In such a case, the challenge from the roster would be cleared, and the individual would be permitted to cast a ballot. A subsequent aside acknowledges the potential problem inherent in this approach, with a speaker named Anderson prompting clarification. The core question remains: could a person who is not a citizen, but who presents a driver’s license at the voting point, be permitted to vote? The chair provides a definitive statement regarding eligibility: at both the time of registration and at the time of submitting a ballot, every voter signs an attestation affirming their eligibility to vote, including that they meet all eligibility requirements that they are a US citizen. This underscores the requirement that, despite the availability of driver’s licenses to a broad population, the attestation of citizenship remains a binding condition for voting. The exchange highlights a tension between broad ID access and the constitutional requirement of citizenship for voting, with the chair reiterating that citizenship is required to vote, even if driver’s licenses are issued more inclusively.

We work for a company registering Hispanic voters. Visited a Georgia complex, found 14% noncitizens registered to vote. Georgia has 339,000 noncitizens, potentially 47,000 registered. Biden won by 12,000 votes. 2024 election at risk.

Voting illegally happens frequently, despite penalties. In California, registering to vote online doesn't require ID. The DMV is registering people to vote, even illegal immigrants, with immunity from prosecution. Safeguards against voter fraud are lacking.

In California and New York, it is illegal to ask for or show ID when people vote. According to the speakers, there is no logical reason for this law other than to facilitate election fraud. To commit fraud, one would eliminate the need for ID and allow mail-in ballots.