reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The SAVE Act, requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration, passed the House with every Republican and four Democrats voting for it, while 98% of Democrats voted against it, despite 84% of Americans supporting voter ID. One argument against voter ID is that it suppresses voting among elderly, poor, and minority groups, echoing post-slavery laws. Obtaining a valid ID can cost $10-$30, and updating documents or traveling to ID offices can be inconvenient. Recently, it was revealed that Social Security numbers were given to millions of illegal immigrants, and thousands of them were found on voter rolls and had voted. While voter ID has cons, the pros outweigh them. Subsidizing IDs for low-income people and acknowledging that voting is a shared inconvenience for all citizens could be solutions. The opposition to voter ID may stem from partisan politics, but politicians should prioritize the will of the people over party loyalty.

Speaker 1 discusses Christopher Krebs, former head of CISA, claiming: Krebs weaponized his position against free speech in the election context and in the context of the COVID-19 presidential memorandum, and that he might have instructed the Department of Justice and other parts of government to investigate what Krebs participated in while head of CISA. Speaker 1 asserts they did not know Krebs personally, but that he came out right after the election, which was a “rigged election, badly rigged election.” He claims the country’s outcomes included open borders and millions entering the country, and asserts that “Russia and Ukraine, that would have never happened,” and that “October 7 would have never happened,” followed by the Afghanistan withdrawal with “13 dead, but so many killed, actually. I mean, so many so many killed outside of the 13 soldiers, hundreds of people killed.” He says, “and maybe, I don’t know, never,” but mentions it, that Krebs was saying the election was great, adding that “it’s been proven that it was not only not great.” He cites lawyers and law firms signing on, “giving us hundreds of millions of dollars,” and claims the election was proven by legislatures not approving, and other forms from “the all of the different, scamming operations,” describing it as a very corrupt election in which COVID was used to cheat. Speaker 1 contends Krebs claimed, “we’ve proved this is the most secure election in the history of our country,” describing the result as a disaster. He insists they should adopt “paper ballots, same day voting, voter ID,” and proposes adding a certificate showing citizenship before voting—“a citizen piece of paper that says you’re a citizen before you can vote.” He reiterates support for voter ID, paper ballots, and same-day voting. He describes events: if you don’t have same-day voting, they change the air, move boxes, and then don’t bring the boxes back, implying a lack of safety in elections. He asserts that elections must have borders and, ideally, a free press, which he claims we do not have, calling the press dishonest. Speaker 1 concludes that Krebs is a “fraud” and a “disgrace,” and says, “We’ll find out whether or not he was right,” promising that Krebs “has a big price to pay” if the election wasn’t safe, labeling Krebs as “a bad guy.” He also states he has no idea who Krebs is, though acknowledges Krebs “was in the room at some point,” and ends by noting that the last two points are important for the country.

The speaker claims Democrats don't want to stop waste and fraud because it attracts and retains illegal immigrants. They allege FEMA money was used to pay for luxury hotels in New York for illegal immigrants, even after an executive order to stop it. The speaker asserts this was done because Democrats are trying to import voters. They also state that California and New York State do not allow voter ID, which they find insane and a violation of the Constitution.

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.

Only citizens should vote in federal elections according to most speakers. Some believe proof of citizenship should be required for voter registration, while others find it redundant and discriminatory. Voter ID laws are supported by some for ensuring election integrity without disenfranchising legal voters, citing increased turnout in states with such laws.

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.

Speaker 0 discusses the likelihood of achieving 60 votes and questions whether the situation is merely a show. He acknowledges uncertainty, noting, “We don't know that we don't have 60 votes yet,” and counters the assumption that there aren’t even 51 votes by saying, “Multiple members of your conference say that there aren't even 51 votes.” He cautions against assuming Democrats won’t be won over, stating, “you're making an assumption that at the end of this debate that none of the Democrats will be won over,” but he also concedes the possibility that none will be won over. Despite the uncertainty, he argues that the debate on the floor of the Senate is important and that the issue is at the core of elections in the United States. He asserts that the American people care about this issue and that constituents have raised it frequently, making it a significant topic to discuss publicly. He believes it is important to have the fight and the debate, regardless of how it ends. A central point he emphasizes is the defense of the position requiring citizenship to participate in voting processes. He states, “at the end of the day, I just don't know how you defend a position that you need to be a citizen in this country, not only to register a vote, but also to be able to show an ID when you vote.” He wonders how long Democrats will defend that position and reiterates the possibility that none of them will be won over. Nevertheless, he reiterates the value of the Senate floor debate, indicating that the process itself is important.

The speaker criticizes the idea that black and brown people cannot obtain IDs to vote, calling it racist and a form of low expectations. They emphasize that voting in the country is easy and that they, along with their family members who served in the military, have never faced difficulties in obtaining IDs. The speaker urges others to focus on voter integrity and not let the issue be framed as a racial one. They promise to fight for the people's right to have their votes counted in Congress.

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.

Speaker 0 says that while a final decision on how to conclude the debate hasn’t been made and options like filing for closure exist, the immediate aim is to ensure a fulsome debate on an issue that is overwhelmingly supported by the American people and put everyone on the record. Today, there will be a vote on whether biological males ought to be able to vote or compete in women’s sports. After that, they will move to the piece of legislation Senator Huston addressed, which he tried to bring up and pass on the floor but was objected to by the Democrats the other night. They will bring that to the floor and put every Democrat on the record. The photo ID amendment will be the next amendment. They describe the Save America Act and its components as common sense, noting that they believe it is supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans, and that 36 states have adopted photo ID.

Voter ID laws are a vestige of post-slavery laws where Black people had to prove their right to vote, often failing due to tests or lack of appropriate ID. These laws also affect married women whose passports may differ from their birth certificates or driver's licenses. Less voter ID laws allows more people to vote, which is how most democracies operate, unlike the United States.

The speaker believes that demanding vaccine IDs while opposing voter ID laws is hypocritical. They claim the purpose of not requiring voter ID is to enable large-scale election fraud that cannot be proven, because it's impossible to prove without ID. The speaker dismisses the argument that voter ID laws are racist, calling it "insane" and "patronizing" to suggest people can't obtain identification. They argue that it's nearly impossible to live in the country without an ID, as it's required for almost everything except voting.

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.

Governor Tim Wall signed the driver's license for all bill into law, allowing all Minnesotans to obtain a driver's license regardless of immigration status. One speaker stated that instead of changing the politician, the goal is to change the voter. Allowing undocumented immigrants to have an ID is considered un-American, and the speaker believes the intention is to flood the market with illegal voters, given concerns about free and fair elections. The speaker claims this policy will allow millions of people to have an ID. The speaker believes that taxpaying and everyday Americans find this policy disgusting and outrageous, and that policymakers are not listening to the concerns of the public.

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.

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.

Speaker 0 argues in favor of an amendment described as the most effective anti-fraud measure found, asserting that the Social Security card is already used across the country as identification. He contends that passing a law against using the Social Security card would be misleading, and he questions why the chairman and the distinguished minority member of the Social Security committee would oppose such a law. He emphasizes that everywhere people are asked for a Social Security card, and that proving one’s eligibility for employment often requires both a driver’s license and a Social Security card. He labels the amendment as anti-fraud and notes that the problem of illegal immigration and fraud is often explained to constituents as people coming here and obtaining jobs and benefits illegally. The gentleman from Florida is credited with assembling what Speaker 0 calls the most effective anti-fraud measure found, described as not changing the actions of the government one bit. Despite its apparent effectiveness, there is substantial opposition to the amendment. Speaker 0 expresses concern that the bill, which began with good intentions, could become a political liability—something the public believes is a form of action without substance. He warns that whenever someone proposes a rational, small step to address fraud, opponents raise hypothetical concerns that derail progress. He stresses that addressing fraud in immigration requires support for the amendment, arguing that those who want to combat fraud have no choice but to back it. In closing, Speaker 0 urges support for the amendment and reiterates the urgency of stopping fraud related to immigration. His time ends with the call to back the amendment.

My colleagues claim that common sense voting laws, like requiring a government ID, are racist. I have multiple government IDs, showing personal responsibility. I have a global entry card, military ID, Texas driver's license, license to carry, congressional card, and passport. Obtaining these IDs is not impossible, it's personal responsibility. I fought for this country as a helicopter pilot to protect free and fair elections. Having a government ID is not racist, it's American. Translation: My colleagues argue that basic voting laws, such as needing a government ID, are discriminatory. I have various government IDs, demonstrating personal responsibility. I possess a global entry card, military ID, Texas driver's license, license to carry, congressional card, and passport. Acquiring these IDs is not impossible, it's about personal responsibility. I served as a helicopter pilot to defend free and fair elections. Having a government ID is not discriminatory, it's American.

Merrick Garland vowed to crack down on any state that implements tougher election security measures, including using an ID to vote. Garland stated that the right to vote in America has been under attack throughout the country's history. He said the DOJ is challenging efforts by states and jurisdictions to implement discriminatory, burdensome, and unnecessary restrictions on access to the ballot. These restrictions include those related to mail-in voting, the use of drop boxes, and voter ID requirements.

Do any Democrats want to explain how this isn't election fraud? In New York, voters don’t need to show ID to vote, except for first-time voters. This means anyone can claim to be someone else and vote without verification. It’s concerning that ballots can be received a week after the election, delaying certification and allowing late ballots to influence results. A secure election should have all votes counted by election day. Additionally, why request a mail-in ballot if you’re just going to drop it off in person? How can poll workers verify identity if ID isn’t checked? This raises serious questions about election integrity. Remember to vote early and in person, and ensure your ballot remains secure.

Speaker 0: President Trump is urging Congress to pass the Save America Act, describing it as one of the most critical pieces of legislation in our nation's history. He asserts the Save America Act is overwhelmingly popular with all Americans because each provision is rooted in common sense, and outlines five simple requirements as requested by the president of the United States. 1) Voters have to show ID to cast a ballot in an American election. He states this is very simple and notes that 90% of Americans, including more than 80% of Democrat voters, agree with this. 2) The Save America Act will require all voters to show proof of citizenship in order to register to vote. He asserts this is popular and rooted in common sense, insisting that only American citizens have the right to vote in American elections. He claims that after Joe Biden and the Democrats allowed tens of millions of illegal aliens into the country, it is more important than ever to ensure that only American citizens are registering to vote on our nation's voter rolls, and he calls on Congress to pass this. 3) The Save America Act abolishes the incongruously unsecure practice of universal mail-in ballots, which he says "throw the door wide open for fraud." He notes that the act maintains exceptions for Americans to use mail-in ballots for illness, disability, military, or travel reasons. He references the bipartisan 2005 report of the Commission on Federal Election Reform, chaired by former president Jimmy Carter and former secretary of state James Baker, which concluded that absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud and that Congress should address this. 4) The Save America Act permanently bans men from competing in women's sports. He notes that President Trump signed a landmark executive order upholding the promise of Title IX and ending this practice, and argues that now it’s time for Congress to codify this into law. 5) The Save America Act bans transgender mutilation surgery for children. He states that the president signed a common-sense executive order to do this and kept his promise to the American people, but now Congress needs to codify it. He asserts it is well past time for Democrats in Congress to stop perpetuating the radical and false claim that you can somehow change a child's sex, stating that you cannot. He concludes by saying passing the Save America Act is the most important thing Republicans—and frankly Democrats—can do to strengthen election integrity and protect democracy. He asserts it is what the American people elected Republicans to do and that they must deliver on it as soon as possible. The president calls on Congress to get the job done and send this historic piece of legislation to his desk immediately for signature.

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.

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.

The speaker expresses shock at the idea of allowing people to vote without an ID. They mention that some people believe all Indians and Chinese look alike, making it difficult to identify individuals. They argue that anyone could show up and vote, even pretending to be someone else. The speaker believes that having an ID should be a basic requirement for voting and suggests that everyone should be required to provide identification.