• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

O'Keefe Voter Fraud Investigation: Young Man Offered Holder's Ballot

OpportunityCost

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2011
Messages
39,082
Reaction score
9,646
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has declared that there is no proof that in-person voter fraud is a problem. He's about to see proof that even he can't deny.
In a new video provided to Breitbart.com, James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas demonstrates why Holder should stop attacking voter ID laws--by walking into Holder’s voting precinct and showing the world that anyone can obtain Eric Holder’s primary ballot. Literally.
The video shows a young man entering a Washington, DC polling place at 3401 Nebraska Avenue, NW, on primary day of this year--April 3, 2012--and giving Holder’s name and address. The poll worker promptly offers the young man Holder’s ballot to vote. The young man then suggests that he should show his ID; the poll worker, in compliance with DC law, states: “You don’t need it. It’s all right. As long as you’re in here, you’re on our list, and that’s who you say you are, you’re okay.”
The young man replies: “I would feel more comfortable if I just had my ID. Is it alright if I go get it?" The poll worker agrees.

"I’ll be back Faster than you can say Furious,” the young man jokes on his way out, in a reference to the Fast and Furious gunwalking scandal that has plagued Holder’s Department of Justice.

Holder has maintained that voter fraud is not a major problem in the United States, and that voter ID would not curb voter fraud in any case.
As Project Veritas has proven, voter fraud is easy and simple--and may be increasingly common in the absence of voter ID laws.
Project Veritas has already shown how dead people can vote in New Hampshire, prompting the state senate to pass a voter ID law; they’ve also shown people can use celebrity names like Tim Tebow and Tom Brady to vote in Minnesota, prompting the state legislature to put voter ID on the ballot as a constitutional amendment.

I think approaching the voter fraud problem from a standpoint of how much is caught is the current wisdom standard for asking why we need it. Should the standard be how much potential is there for abuse? How easy is it to use a voter's identity once its on the rolls, if the abuser knows they either wont be voting or the registration is false in itself?

This seems to show its pretty easy.
 
There's a voter fraud problem? You're kidding me.
 
O'Keefe has been thoroughly discredited. Nothing he offers should ever be taken seriously.
 
Well, first off, you'll have to forgive me for not taking an O'Keefe video hosted by breitbart.com at face value, seeing as how that exact pairing has more than one instance of proven lies via edited footage.

Next, yes, people probably can get away with doing this. That doesn't mean it's something that happens regularly. The thing with voter fraud is that there's very little to gain and the penalties are stiff if you get caught.

The more pressing question is how many fraudulent votes actually get cast, and get cast in a manner that voter ID's would have prevented.
 
O'Keefe has been thoroughly discredited. Nothing he offers should ever be taken seriously.

Of course. When we have those pillars of ethical government to guide us, such as Obammy and Holdup, just who does O'Keefe think he is, somebody else in a polling place !!

No voter fraud problems. Move along :roll:

Wise-monkeys.jpg
 
Of course. When we have those pillars of ethical government to guide us, such as Obammy and Holdup, just who does O'Keefe think he is, somebody else in a polling place !!

No voter fraud problems. Move along :roll:

View attachment 67125580

Are you really surprised that people don't immediately accept footage from someone with a proven history of deceptively editing footage? I mean, really?
 
Why not include the link the words came from, why not include a link to the video, why not show that the poll worker says to the man "sign your name here" before he abruptly vacated the premisses?

The man is clearly a fraud who I liken to a bank robber who would hand the teller a note that reads he wants all the money and then he proceeds to walk out without any money and then goes on to say look how easy banks are to rob.

The man never signed the form and never got to vote on Erics ballot, sort of looks like he came close to committing a fraudulent act but never actually did.

Maybe he should sign the form and cast the ballot next time, if he wants to prove anything significant.

I would bet Eric signature is on file for comparison there and if it wasn't, there is probably a rule that says if a voter doesn't have a signature already on file then they need to show ID of sorts.

Edit: this appears to be the video here:
 
Last edited:
Why not include the link the words came from, why not include a link to the video, why not show that the poll worker says to the man "sign your name here" before he abruptly vacated the premisses?

The man is clearly a fraud who I liken to a bank robber who would hand the teller a note that reads he wants all the money and then he proceeds to walk out without any money and then goes on to say look how easy banks are to rob.

The man never signed the form and never got to vote on Erics ballot, sort of looks like he came close to committing a fraudulent act but never actually did.

Maybe he should sign the form and cast the ballot next time, if he wants to prove anything significant.

I would bet Eric signature is on file for comparison there and if it wasn't, there is probably a rule that says if a voter doesn't have a signature already on file then they need to show ID of sorts.

Why not? Because it would immediately prove, once again, what a charlatan O'Keefe is.

Nicely done UTM, as always. :)
 
Are you really surprised that people don't immediately accept footage from someone with a proven history of deceptively editing footage? I mean, really?

Apparently so.
 
Use what judgement you have. If he signs, a felony has now been committed. Are you suggesting that the worker was going to analyze the signature ?

Here in Florida folks, we show ID first. Before we get a ballot. Before we sign. Admittedly, I do not know the entire process for if I do not have ID. I do know that I get a ballot that is then more likely to be checked afterwards. No one is disenfranchised libs.

One needs to show ID for so many other basic interactions in society. The objections of the Democrats to all this is so easy to see. Bogus.
 
Use what judgement you have. If he signs, a felony has now been committed. Are you suggesting that the worker was going to analyze the signature ?........

In the polling places I have worked they would compare the signature to the one on file from the previous election, if there was no signature on file then the voter would need to prove his or her identity using various forms of ID such as maybe some utility bills and or a drivers license etc. There would be one democrat and one republican to verify the signature/voter(two people work that first station here)and it would be left up to those two polling place workers to determine the voters eligibility. Are those two poll workers here handwriting exerts no, they are ordinary citizens who have sat down with their opposing parties representative in hopes of conducting a fair election.

If there was election fraud taking place, isn't it more likely that forgery has been committed along with mail fraud etc.

I personally think because of these videos and shenanigans being played with the poll workers that maybe a sign needs to be posted at the poll entrances stating that "any misleading information provided to poll workers may be used against you in a court of law" and "video taping or audio recording on these premises is forbidden without a proper permit and is punishable by federal law", the latter message would remove these trolls from the polls for good.

One would have to assume that the original video tapes contain other voters information on the audio and video which should be a violation of the law IMO.
 
Last edited:
In the polling places I have worked they would compare the signature to the one on file from the previous election, if there was no signature on file then the voter would need to prove his or her identity using various forms of ID such as maybe some utility bills and or a drivers license etc. There would be one democrat and one republican to verify the signature/voter(two people work that first station here)and it would be left up to those two polling place workers to determine the voters eligibility. Are those two poll workers here handwriting exerts no, they are ordinary citizens who have sat down with their opposing parties representative in hopes of conducting a fair election.

If there was election fraud taking place, isn't it more likely that forgery has been committed along with mail fraud etc.

I personally think because of these videos and shenanigans being played with the poll workers that maybe a sign needs to be posted at the poll entrances stating that "any misleading information provided to poll workers may be used against you in a court of law" and "video taping or audio recording on these premises is forbidden without a proper permit and is punishable by federal law", the latter message would remove these trolls from the polls for good.

One would have to assume that the original video tapes contain other voters information on the audio and video which should be a violation of the law IMO.

All that is fine. Except to just require ID negates the need for all of what you mention, much of which may not actually be done. To say that there are other more cumbersome and less efficient ways to check would seem to support a case for doing it in a more efficient way. As many states already do ;)
 
All that is fine. Except to just require ID negates the need for all of what you mention, much of which may not actually be done. To say that there are other more cumbersome and less efficient ways to check would seem to support a case for doing it in a more efficient way. As many states already do ;)

There are people unable to get IDs because they lack the paperwork required to get them. Getting that paperwork often requires an ID.

Disenfranchisement is very cumbersome.
 
All that is fine. Except to just require ID negates the need for all of what you mention, much of which may not actually be done. To say that there are other more cumbersome and less efficient ways to check would seem to support a case for doing it in a more efficient way. As many states already do ;)

Well seeing how it is not that hard to obtain a fake ID in this country(from what I hear)that probably wouldn't stop fraud from taking place(if it is), and who says the poll worker is going to scrutinize the ID any more than they would a signature. A complex system of fingerprint scanners and or complex computers that would scan IDs to remove the human(error) factor would be needed, and even then he who makes the software that runs the system could always still be suspect.

No, what we have IMO is losers insisting they lost because they were cheated.

Look at who where and how they count the ballots in the end. From what I read a privately owned foreign company now counts/tallies the US election results.

Yet some people still insist that only their neighbors are cheating the system in their local precincts.

I personally trust people more than I do electronics.
 
Last edited:
There are people unable to get IDs because they lack the paperwork required to get them. Getting that paperwork often requires an ID.

Disenfranchisement is very cumbersome.

Someone in the thread posted earlier that if there is not a signature on file, they currently have to show an ID in order to vote. Additionally, they indicated (and I expereinced this just recently in the republican primary and had to show 2 ID's, which was not easy for me) if your signature changes you have to show an ID. Is that not also disenfranchisement for those that don't have ID's? Assuming of course that having to show an ID is an unfair burden upon the voting public.
 
Why not include the link the words came from, why not include a link to the video, why not show that the poll worker says to the man "sign your name here" before he abruptly vacated the premisses?

The man is clearly a fraud who I liken to a bank robber who would hand the teller a note that reads he wants all the money and then he proceeds to walk out without any money and then goes on to say look how easy banks are to rob.

The man never signed the form and never got to vote on Erics ballot, sort of looks like he came close to committing a fraudulent act but never actually did.

Maybe he should sign the form and cast the ballot next time, if he wants to prove anything significant.

I would bet Eric signature is on file for comparison there and if it wasn't, there is probably a rule that says if a voter doesn't have a signature already on file then they need to show ID of sorts.

Edit: this appears to be the video here:


Anyone else here ever have to sign anything? A less scrupulous person would have signed his name, taken the ballot and voted. Do you think the poll worker had the signature on file?
 
Anyone else here ever have to sign anything? A less scrupulous person would have signed his name, taken the ballot and voted. Do you think the poll worker had the signature on file?

Why would a less scrupulous person do that? Most of us don't even bother to vote once, let alone twice. What benefit do I receive from voting twice, and how does that compare to the consequences of potentially getting caught?

The poll worker might have the signature right there with him, depends on the state.
 
Why not include the link the words came from, why not include a link to the video, why not show that the poll worker says to the man "sign your name here" before he abruptly vacated the premisses?

The man is clearly a fraud who I liken to a bank robber who would hand the teller a note that reads he wants all the money and then he proceeds to walk out without any money and then goes on to say look how easy banks are to rob.

The man never signed the form and never got to vote on Erics ballot, sort of looks like he came close to committing a fraudulent act but never actually did.

Maybe he should sign the form and cast the ballot next time, if he wants to prove anything significant.

I would bet Eric signature is on file for comparison there and if it wasn't, there is probably a rule that says if a voter doesn't have a signature already on file then they need to show ID of sorts.

Edit: this appears to be the video here:
If he had he would have been committing voter fraud. The intent wasnt to commit fraud but to prove that it could be done...and very easily. Or do you really want to pretend those crafty poll workers were just waiting for him to actually vote and then pounce on him?
 
Anyone else here ever have to sign anything? A less scrupulous person would have signed his name, taken the ballot and voted. Do you think the poll worker had the signature on file?
Surely there is no reason why people that have been caught fraudulently registering voters across the country and fraudulently entering falsified role initiatives even to get someone like...say...some guy named Obama on the democrat primary ballot in say...Indiana...in the first place might conduct such acts.

I know...I know...illegally and fraudulently registering to vote isnt REALLY voting. And besides...what kind of scumbags would do such a thing? or for that matter excuse them, downplay them, or just outright dismiss them. Funny how so many people, typically aligned with a particular party keep getting caught doing such things.
 
I get what O'keefe was trying to do here, and his line about being back "faster than you can say furious" was pretty funny, but I wonder if bought himself some trouble here by trying to give the impression (although he never said it) he's someone else, much less the Attorney General. Also, I do wonder how he knew Holder's personal address.
 
There are people unable to get IDs because they lack the paperwork required to get them. Getting that paperwork often requires an ID.

Disenfranchisement is very cumbersome.

Sorry. No dice. Everyone needs to meet certainly eligibility requirements to vote.
That means proving that you are you somewhere. All states could easily have laws for ID that conform to that basic requirement.
 
Sorry. No dice. Everyone needs to meet certainly eligibility requirements to vote.
That means proving that you are you somewhere. All states could easily have laws for ID that conform to that basic requirement.

Well, you're welcome to your opinion, but what I said is true. Some people cannot obtain a photo ID. Requiring an ID would therefore disenfranchise them. Voting is the main fundamental right to democracy. I'm willing to accept (very) isolated instances of fraud to make sure that eligible voters are not excluded.

Voter fraud is possible. Obviously. It's also possible to steal a tree. Neither is something particularly common. I've yet to see evidence that actual fraudulently cast votes is something that happens regularly. It's because I don't gain anything by voting twice. Hell, people barely want to vote once. Often cited are things that wouldn't be prevented by voter ID's, like felons who cast votes when they are not actually eligible. The ID check wouldn't catch that, your driver's license doesn't say "FELON" on it.

No system will ever be perfect. Even requiring ID's, people can get fake ID's. We call them "college students." So, the main question really comes down to this: what burden are we placing on the people trying to exercise a fundamental right, and how much fraud is actually prevented by this measure?

I don't see that ratio as being in favor of ID laws.

And I am absolutely, positively not going to accept footage at face value from someone with a proven history of lying by editing footage!
 
Last edited:
Maybe its because you dont understand how attempted voter fraud works. You begin by making fake registrations. You then have people go in posed as the people on the registrations to vote. Voter ID eliminates this as a possible fraud avenue. Thats ACORN was persued as hard as it was with its faked registrations. The intent to defraud is certainly there if you begin by faking regs. Then getting extra votes is a simple matter of just getting a warm body to the polling place.

You are confusing voter fraud convictions with actual voter fraud. Its notoriously hard to prosecute and the political pushback from doing so is significant.

And I am absolutely, positively not going to accept footage at face value from someone with a proven history of lying by editing footage!
Does that mean you arent going trust NBC, Rueters, and CBS, each of whom has faked footage, photos or documents? Im not saying take it at face value, Im saying look at it and make your own judgements. I dont expect you to be a sheep over it.
 
Maybe its because you dont understand how attempted voter fraud works. You begin by making fake registrations. You then have people go in posed as the people on the registrations to vote. Voter ID eliminates this as a possible fraud avenue. Thats ACORN was persued as hard as it was with its faked registrations. The intent to defraud is certainly there if you begin by faking regs. Then getting extra votes is a simple matter of just getting a warm body to the polling place.

You are confusing voter fraud convictions with actual voter fraud. Its notoriously hard to prosecute and the political pushback from doing so is significant.


Does that mean you arent going trust NBC, Rueters, and CBS, each of whom has faked footage, photos or documents? Im not saying take it at face value, Im saying look at it and make your own judgements. I dont expect you to be a sheep over it.

Sigh. Another victim of O'Keefe. :doh
 
I think approaching the voter fraud problem from a standpoint of how much is caught is the current wisdom standard for asking why we need it. Should the standard be how much potential is there for abuse? How easy is it to use a voter's identity once its on the rolls, if the abuser knows they either wont be voting or the registration is false in itself?

This seems to show its pretty easy.

But there was no voter fraud in this case.
 
Back
Top Bottom