reSee.it - Related Video Feed

According to the speaker, Gavin Newsom signed a document that makes it a crime to ask a voter for identification. The speaker believes this action indicates a desire to cheat on elections. The speaker claims that while identification is required for other activities, it is now virtually a crime to ask for it when voting, which the speaker considers the most important act. The speaker asserts the only reason for this is to enable election cheating and insists this should not be allowed to happen.

The claim is that 69 million married women won't be able to vote if they took their husband's name, disenfranchising voters. Voters want ID, signature verification, chain of custody controls, and updated voter rolls. They also want partisan observers watching the voting process. The only reason to be against these measures is if you want illegal aliens to vote in large numbers. Every other country requires an ID to vote. The idea that married women, a Republican voting demographic, can't get ID is a dumb talking point. The REAL ID Act creates an ID at the DMV that proves citizenship. Democrats want illegal aliens to vote. The Biden administration gave millions of illegal aliens Social Security numbers, making it easy to vote, collect welfare, and get free government benefits. They want illegals to steal elections.

The clip argues that ICE and the National Guard would “chill participation” at polling places and that there must be “a stake in the ground and do things differently.” The speaker, who says, “throughout that entire eighteen year period, there was never a single time that I showed up at a polling station on election day because I did not have the right to vote in America,” asks: “So what is Gavin Newsom saying here? There are immigrants who are voting?” They claim “the presence of ICE will stop people from going to the polls” and conclude that, “So basically what he is saying is that illegal immigrants will be deterred from going to the polls.” They ask, “Is this the reason why they don't want voter IDs?” “If this is not a confession of how corrupt the voting system in Democrat controlled states have become, I don't know what will convince you.” “As a new American citizen... I believe that my vote needs to be protected from being wiped out by illegal immigrants.” “If this was not a plan, I am calling on ICE to actually show up at polling stations because citizens are not intimidated by seeing law enforcement.” “And we cannot continue to allow our election system to be abused.”

In California and New York, showing ID when voting is not allowed, even if you want to. The question is, why would that ever be a good idea? Well, if you're trying to facilitate fraud in elections, it's a great idea. There's logically no other reason why that would be a good idea. It's for fraud. Wake up, people. If you wanted to commit fraud, the first things you would do is say that you don't need an ID and that you can mail in your ballot.

Non-citizens are not allowed to vote under federal law, but the Biden-Harris administration and some states are undermining this. The SAVE Act, requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration, was blocked by Democrats in the Senate. The wide-open border, with an estimated 16 million illegal aliens in the country, raises concerns about non-citizen voting. Some house races are decided by very few votes, so illegal participation could be decisive. California's ballot harvesting and Wisconsin's unmanned ballot boxes in public parks are also seen as opening the door to fraud. The speaker believes Republicans will win the House, Senate, and White House.

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.

They go to the New York City Board of Elections office at 200 Varick Street, 10th Floor, in New York, NY, planning to pose as a non-citizen, Canadian green card holder to see how far they can get in the voter registration process. They note that a clerk initially says you must be a citizen to fill out the registration, but another clerk claims they “accept anything that comes over the counter” and that there are people who have legal situations and registered when they weren’t a citizen. The first clerk’s behavior raises concern: he does not tell them it would be illegal to complete the application as a noncitizen, only that he wouldn’t recommend it. The participants press for clarity. The first clerk admits that “we can’t stop you from submitting the application and if it goes through, but most likely because they don’t do like a full background check,” and adds that “once in a while, you know, we have people who come in here and they have legal situations and they registered, they weren’t a citizen, boom, boom, boom.” The participants quote that as a direct admission that non-citizens are in fact registering to vote. One participant asks if they can fill out the form, and the clerk responds: “Up to you. That’s right. I can’t tell you what to do. You wanna fill that, fill it out. But everything is clear clearly stated, especially at this bottom, it says American citizens.” The participant asks if the clerk would report them; the clerk says “No. No. No. I’m not, no. I’m not that’s not my job to report anyone. My job is just to collect the application and put it and submit it to the department.” The clerk adds that they “accept anything that comes over the counter, you know.” Under New York election law, section 17-106, it is stated that “any election officer who willfully violates any provision of the election law relative to the registration of electors is guilty of a felony.” The participants note it would be a criminal offense for the worker to process their voter registration after admitting to being a noncitizen. They ask if they can take materials with them and the clerk confirms they can “take one of these.” The participants are told that they can fill out the form, and if it comes back or doesn’t, they will submit it; the clerk reiterates that they “can’t do our background check on you. We just collect it.” On leaving, they decide not to submit any application, since doing so would be illegal. They later return to gather more information, but the worker becomes suspicious, consults a coworker, and then changes his stance and refuses to accept the application. They observe that at these centers, there is no requirement to show ID, Social Security, or any proof of identification; all you have to do is sign an affidavit stating you are an American citizen. They describe this as a potential threat to the integrity of the U.S. electoral system. They conclude with the implication that non-citizen registrations have occurred and question how many such forms have been processed.

Speaker 1 believes that if Trump doesn't win the election, it will be the last election because Democrats are importing illegals via a secret CBP border app program. He claims this is illegal, but the DOJ isn't stopping it. According to Speaker 1, government websites show triple-digit increases in illegals in swing states, sometimes up to 700% over the last 3 years. He asserts that asylum seekers are fast-tracked to citizenship and vote Democrat, prioritizing bringing family to the US and being beholden to Democratic handouts. Speaker 1 predicts another four years of a Democratic administration will lead to legalizing enough illegals to eliminate swing states, turning the US into a single-party country like California, which became a super-majority Democrat state after the 1986 amnesty. He states California recently passed a law making voter ID illegal in any election.

The speaker claims that illegal voter registration originates from the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC), founded by David Becker with George Soros' money. Becker allegedly had a past scandal involving the DOJ and the city of Boston. ERIC contracts with states to access DMV records, including sensitive data protected under the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, to identify unregistered individuals. The speaker alleges that ERIC's membership agreement prohibits disclosing citizenship status, leading to ineligible voters being added to voter rolls. This information is then circulated back to states and shared with the Center for Election Innovation and Research, which received funding from Mark Zuckerberg.

42,000 people in Nevada voted more than once, 1,500 were deceased, 19,000 didn't live in Nevada or attend college, 8,000 voted from non-existent addresses, 15,000 were registered at vacant addresses, and 4,000 were noncitizens. The speaker questions if any prosecutions are happening in Nevada for the 130,000 instances of voter fraud identified in the 2020 election. No prosecutions have been reported yet.

Speaker 0 argues that illegal voting occurs with penalties in place, and asserts that it happens all the time. He contends that the claim of illegality not being widespread is not reliable, insisting that we do not know how widespread illegal voting is because it is not being detected. He describes the California voter registration process, noting on the section where a driver’s license number or the last four digits of a social security number are entered, there is a box underneath each one stating, “I don’t have one,” which allows a person to proceed to vote. He says this demonstrates that the notion of needing to present some form of identification to register to vote is not accurate and is not being implemented in California. Additionally, he states that people are being registered to vote at the DMV, and cites audits indicating that the DMV has improperly registered people, including illegal immigrants. He claims there is immunity in place that says if the DMV registers someone who is not eligible, they are immune from prosecution. Based on these points, he expresses the belief that there are not sufficient safeguards in place to detect and prevent people from committing voter fraud.

42,000 people in Nevada voted more than once, 1,500 were deceased, 19,000 didn't live in Nevada or attend college, 8,000 voted from a non-existent address, 15,000 were registered to vacant addresses, and 4,000 were noncitizens. The speaker asks if there are any ongoing prosecutions for voter fraud in Nevada, given the 130,000 instances identified in the 2020 election. The response is that there are currently no prosecutions.

Motor voter laws are being exploited to pack voter rolls, yet lawmakers in Arizona have not acted to address this. If voting machines are the issue, why is there a need for such extensive voter roll manipulation? The focus should be on doing what’s right from the start, rather than relying on those who prioritize donations or superficial qualities. The speaker emphasizes their expertise in software, which underpins the voting process, and highlights the importance of focusing on ballots rather than machines. They point out that isolated cases of voter fraud are used to downplay the larger issue of election fraud, which is a serious crime. The real problem lies in election interference and rigging.

Speaker 0 discusses registering and voting from outside the country, citing Pakistan as an example. He mentions evidence of two or three other people out of the country who voted, as well as people residing outside the district. He describes the online voter registration system as an honor system, saying anybody can enter information to register to vote. He states, “All you have to do is click a box and say that you're not lying,” after which you’ll receive an email from the secretary of state or something in the mail saying, “thank you for registering to vote,” and there you are. Once you're on the voter rolls, anytime an election comes around, “guess what? You get mailed a ballot. Right? You get mailed something to vote.” He concludes by noting, “So we found that a little bit problema.”

The speaker claims the Biden-Harris administration and some states are undermining election integrity, not them. Federal law prohibits non-citizens from voting, but states have issues. The speaker says the House passed the SAVE Act, requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration, but Chuck Schumer and the Democrats blocked it in the Senate. The speaker alleges the open border policy is a Democratic strategy to enable non-citizen voting. They estimate 16 million illegal aliens are in the country since the border was opened, raising concerns about their potential illegal participation in elections, where some races are decided by very few votes. The speaker also cites California's ballot harvesting and unmanned ballot boxes in Wisconsin as potential sources of fraud.

Some people believe claims about illegal immigration are fabricated, but this is untrue. New York tried to legalize illegal immigrant voting until the State Supreme Court blocked it. California provides healthcare to all illegal immigrants, with costs rising from an initial $3 billion to $9 billion. The real reason for attacks is that payments to illegal immigrants will be terminated. FEMA funds were used to house illegal immigrants in luxury New York hotels with welcome packages and $10,000 debit cards. The speaker believes this is the biggest voter fraud in history. The asylum-to-citizen timeframe is roughly five years, so if the "Kamala puppet" machine had won, all those people would have been legalized, eliminating swing states. Benefit programs are ending, but this doesn't include the other 7.5-8 million illegal immigrants that ICE estimates are in the country. Voter ID is crucial because the Social Security number, while not a federal ID, is used to access benefits. One can obtain a Social Security number by answering questions and showing non-federal IDs like a medical bill and school ID, then get on voter rolls, and then operatives will form the vote.

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.

Speaker 0 visits a location in California described as “home to a porta john and a giant empty parking lot,” yet inside this empty lot there are “registered voters.” He states that there are “26 registered voters for this exact location. 100 Sunset Avenue in Venice. 26 people registered to a porta john and an empty parking lot. Where do their ballots go exactly? So who's picking up the ballots? Who's voting for the people in this lovely porta john empty lot? Ask the question.” He concludes, “I think you know the answer.”

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.

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.

The speakers claim that noncitizens could sway elections if even a small percentage voted, alleging it's easy for them to register. They say there are no federal requirements for states to verify citizenship before voter registration. A proposed Republican bill to mandate proof of citizenship is expected to fail in the Senate. They cite Title 18 US Code 611, stating noncitizens can vote in federal elections if they reasonably believed they were citizens. They suggest that migrants granted asylum could claim they thought they could vote, avoiding penalties. They claim states like New York allow voter registration without ID or a Social Security number, only requiring a utility bill or similar document. One speaker alleges Democrats are working to conceal the number of illegal votes cast. They argue that providing noncitizens with benefits and pressuring them to register to vote is a deliberate strategy to gain illegal votes. They suggest a scenario where Chinese nationals could register and vote for Biden to avoid Trump's tariffs, calling it election interference. They conclude that illegal votes disenfranchise citizens and that Democrats prefer noncitizens over US citizens.

42,000 people in Nevada voted multiple times, including 1,500 deceased individuals, 19,000 who didn't reside in Nevada, and 8,000 from nonexistent addresses. Additionally, 15,000 were registered at commercial or vacant addresses, and 4,000 were noncitizens. In our state, we prosecute individuals for voting twice, which occurs about 50 times a year. Of the 130,000 instances of potential voter fraud identified in Nevada's 2020 election, there have been no prosecutions yet. It's crucial to enforce voter integrity laws. While building a fraud case can take time, an honest investigation should lead to charges. Losing the principle of one person, one vote risks authoritarianism.

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.

Some believe that many millennials, dreamers, and undocumented people, who contribute to the country, are fearful of voting because they worry immigration will find them and deport their families. One speaker claims that this is untrue because voting is confidential and voting rolls are not transferred for investigation. Another speaker expresses disbelief, stating that the President is questioning whether an illegal person is voting, and reminding people that only citizens can vote. The speaker believes the President is saying not to worry about being caught for illegal voting. The speaker emphasizes that undocumented people cannot vote because they are not citizens.

The first speaker describes a scenario in which a person can obtain a driver’s license again because licenses are issued broadly to those who register to vote. If the individual’s Social Security number does not match, they are flagged, but as long as they present an ID (the driver’s license) and sign that they are eligible to vote, they can vote and are no longer flagged, remaining in the system. Mister Lanell then responds by clarifying the process. He says that for anyone presenting documentation to register to vote, that documentation serves as affirmation of their identity. He notes that the driver’s license has not been used as proof of citizenship for the purposes of registering to vote; rather, it affirms that the person is who they say they are. He adds that in any case where someone were to cast a ballot, if they were ineligible to vote, there are reports generated post-election for voters who are challenged. Counties run these reports to show the status of voters that had been updated due to having cast a ballot, and these reports can be reviewed and referred to the county attorney. The first speaker concludes by restating the original question and provides a direct answer: the answer is yes to their question.