Dems ‘in their own words’ confess ‘voter fraud’


Democrats are engaged in damage control in the wake of undercover videos from Project Veritas showing party operatives admitting to stoking violence at Trump rallies and being open to engaging in mass voter fraud, and the group says these videos are just the tip of the iceberg.

On Monday, Project Veritas released a video depicting Scott Foval, who later was removed from his job with the Democrat-linked Americans United for Change, admitting to inciting violence at Trump events, including a riot in Chicago that injured police officers and another that shut down a road near a Trump rally in Arizona.

Tuesday, a follow-up video depicted Foval bragging about Democrats busing in voters from other precincts to influence elections and at least entertaining other forms of voter fraud this year. Longtime Democratic operative Robert Creamer resigned as head of Democracy Partners that same day.

Creamer, who is married to Chicago-area Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., also served time years ago on a felony fraud conviction.

“In the first video, we see that they’re actually doing the things that are despicable. In the second video, we have them talking prospectively about what they’re going to do on Election Day. We have to be vigilant, go out and see if we can catch them on Election Day doing those things,” said Project Veritas Executive Director Russ Verney.

Sign the precedent-setting petition supporting Trump’s call for an independent prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton!

“But since they’ve already delivered on their violence at rallies, we have no reason to believe that they don’t intend to bus people around and commit other voter fraud,” added Verney.

In addition to dismissing Foval and Creamer, Democrats have pointed the finger of blame at Project Veritas and founder James O’Keefe. Media, such as the New York Times, usually refer to Project Veritas as “a conservative group led by the activist James O’Keefe that has been heavily criticized as using deceptive editing.”

Listen to the interview:



Verney rejects the left’s effort to dismiss the videos by attacking Project Veritas and O’Keefe.

“Nobody has pointed to anything in either of the videos that’s untrue or that they challenge the veracity of. We’ve got them in their own words admitting to their own underhanded acts to subvert the Trump campaign and to commit voter fraud,” said Verney.

As for the suggestion that “deceptive editing” created this controversy, Verney says that is patently false.

“They attack the messenger instead of the message. You say that it’s heavily edited and imply that we’ve done something nefarious with the editing, but they can’t point to anything within the videos that are nefarious. They are the actual words of the targets in their own context. We allow the people to fully hang themselves in these videos,” said Verney.

Verney especially gets a kick out of broadcast media promoting the “deceptive editing” defense.

“Every video you watch on ABC, Fox, whatever, is edited. We would have to post hundreds of hours of video if you want it unedited,” he said.

But while Democrats try to wash their hands of the controversy by kicking Creamer and Foval to the curb this cycle, Verney doesn’t necessarily buy that they’re really off the stage.

“As they say in the video, ‘We don’t talk about things that we talk about.’ All this is a wink and a nod. So whether or not they’re actually fired or just moved to another company is yet to be seen,” said Verney.

Even if the Democratic National Committee, the Clinton campaign and private groups really did cut ties with Creamer and Foval, Verney is confident the tactics aren’t changing.

“Regardless of whether or not those individuals are still in their positions, the organizations that they’re with are still in position and still carrying on, still committing the same kind of tactics as when Bob Creamer was the head of the operation or Scott Foval. They’ve still got plenty of other replacements out there doing the same things,” said Verney.

However, Verney warns Democrats that there damage control efforts are not over yet.

“They’ve fired two of the top people so far. The only thing that the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary campaign can do is try to attack the messenger. They can’t deal with the message. And believe me, this is going to get worse,” said Verney, referring to more Project Veritas videos that are on the way.

He didn’t say exactly what the forthcoming videos would show, but he did mention that as many as eight undercover reporters infiltrated various parts of the Democratic Party apparatus and discovered more evidence of illegal communicating and collaborating between organizations that are forbidden by law from working together.

“They gained the confidence of the highest level of Democratic operatives in multiple organizations: Americans United for Change, the Foval Group, Democracy Partners. They sat in and listened to conference calls where the campaign, the White House, the Democratic National Committee and the Super PAC were all on the conference call with these operatives making their plans,” said Verney.

He says that’s proof of the Democrats flagrantly violating the law.

“The Hillary Super PAC is involved in this coordination, which makes the whole thing totally illegal. This is a dark money conspiracy, where these organizations are prohibited from prior coordination with each other if they’re spending money to promote the Hillary election or the Trump defeat. They cannot coordinate. We’ve exposed exactly how they coordinate with each other in violation of the law,” said Verney.

WND reported when the videos were released. And when O’Keefe filed a Federal Election Commission complaint over the actions.

Editor’s Note: Be aware of offensive language throughout videos and in quotes from videos.

See the second video:


The first video:


Talk-radio icon Rush Limbaugh said the evidence is worrisome.

“Every Trump rally would feature none of this [violence] unless the Democrats were paying for it. I think it’s a big deal, folks. The media is complicit. They know who these people are. … They’re in on it. They’re part of the game. … None of it’s organic. None of it’s natural. None of it’s real. Every bit of it is bought and paid for.

“[Democrats] can’t leave elections to chance because they know that, despite the way it may look, the majority of Americans would not support them if they knew who they are.”

Last week, O’Keefe reported his Twitter account was shut down as he was releasing reports on voter fraud.

The latest video (Some listeners may find the language objectionable):


See the video showing a top Democrat admitting voter fraud is common:


Sign the precedent-setting petition supporting Trump’s call for an independent prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton!


Here’s what voter fraud looks like in 23 states


Here’s What Voter Fraud Looks Like In 23 States
By Justin Caruso
Reprinted with permission of the Daily Caller News Foundation

Republican candidate Donald Trump is making accusations that the election is “rigged” against him, even suggesting the possibility of voter fraud.

Trump leveled this accusation in a tweet early Monday morning that read, “Of course there is large scale voter fraud happening on and before election day. Why do Republican leaders deny what is going on? So naive!”

Get the hottest, most important news stories on the Internet – delivered FREE to your inbox as soon as they break! Take just 30 seconds and sign up for WND’s Email News Alerts!

Many others strongly push back against claims of voter fraud. The Brennan Center for Justice says that voter fraud is “myth” and the Washington Post maintains that voter fraud isn’t a problem. (RELATED: NYC Democratic Official: ‘I Think There’s A Lot of Voter Fraud’ [VIDEO])

As the debate rages, here are examples of voter fraud in 23 different states, as compiled by the Daily Caller News Foundation. 


Just a few weeks ago, Harrisonburg, Va., claimed about 20 voter applications were submitted for dead people. A voter registration group called “HarrisonburgVOTES” is responsible for the applications, and the group is reportedly headed by Joe Fitzgerald, chairman of the Democratic Committee in Harrisonburg.

An investigation has been launched.


An investigation in Colorado in September, 2016, revealed that dead people were voting in multiple elections. “We do believe there were several instances of potential vote fraud that occurred,” Colorado Secretary of State Wayne Williamstold local news station CBS4.

An egregious example of illegal voter fraud in Colorado was that of Sara Sosa, a woman who died in 2009, yet “voted” in 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013.


Two Democratic officials in Michigan, Jason Bauer and Mike McGuinness, were convicted in 2012 for involvement in an election fraud scheme. The two men attempted to put a fake “Tea Party” candidate on the ballot to split the conservative vote.


In only three counties in California’s 2016 presidential primary, there were reportedly 194 people who voted twice. Some voters were voting once by mail, then going to polls and voting again, according to the East Bay Times. It is possible that even more mail votes were submitted fraudulently, but only 194 people actually voted in person after having a mail ballot submitted for them, leading to them being caught.


The initial results of a Democratic primary in St. Louis this year were scrapped after absentee ballots were improperly recorded. The first election, which had shown incumbent Penny Hubbard winning the race, was re-done. In the special election that followed, Hubbard’s opponent, Bruce Franks, Jr., decisively won.


Deisy Penton de Cabrera was convicted in 2013 of possessing more than two ballots which belong to other voters. Cabrera was found with 12 absentee ballots of other people and was keeping a list of elderly Hispanic voters, many whom were deaf, blind, or had Alzheimer’s.


In Magoffin County, Ky., three people were convicted of felony voter fraud in 2016. Magoffin County Magistrate Gary Risner, Deputy County Clerk Larry Shepard, and Tami Jo Risner were discovered buying votes.

During the case, the court heard witnesses testify to being paid $50 to vote for a slate in 2014.

North Carolina

Pasco Parker, a Tennessee resident, pleaded guilty to felony voter fraud in North Carolina in 2015 after he voted in person in Tennessee, then sent in absentee ballots to Florida and North Carolina.

A North Carolina watchdog group called the “Voter Integrity Project”uncovered Parker’s fraud.


Democratic State Rep. Hudson Hallum, along with his father Ken Hallum and two campaign workers, were caught bribing absentee voters and tampering with ballots. They pleaded guilty and were sentenced in 2013.


A Georgia man named Mohammad Shafiq fraudulently tampered with voter registrations during a 2012 election. Shafiq was convicted and sentenced in 2015.


Former Indiana Secretary of State Charlie White was convicted of felony charges in 2012 after lying about his address to keep collecting a paycheck from the Fishers Town Council.


In early 2015, Pennsylvania Secretary of the Commonwealth Carol Aichele announced, “there’s potential voter fraud in Pennsylvania,” going on to say that around 731 people may have double voted in Pennsylvania.


Arizona woman Carol Hannah voted in both Arizona and Colorado in 2010. Hannah was convicted of voter fraud in Colorado and lost her right to vote.


An Iowa woman named Mayra Alejandra Lopez Morales pleaded guilty and was convicted in a voter fraud case in 2014. Morales, not a citizen of the United States, registered and voted in the 2012 election.


Former Connecticut State Rep. Christina Ayala was convicted in 2015 for election law violations. Ayala voted several times in districts where she did not live.


Michael L. Hannum pled guilty and was convicted in Kansas for voting in both Nebraska and Kansas in 2012.


Louisiana man Stanley Leger pleaded guilty to buying votes in a mayoral race. Leger reportedly paid mentally impaired people to vote for a candidate he worked for.


Wendy Rosen, a 2012 Democratic congressional candidate in Maryland, brought her campaign to an end after revelations surfaced that she voted in 2006 and 2008 in both Maryland and Florida. Rosen pleaded guilty to illegal voting in 2013.


A Mexican man named Rogelio Mejorada-Lopez was registered to vote in Alaska and voted in several elections. He was caught and convicted in 2005.


Robert Munroe, a Wisconsin resident, was convicted in 2016 of voting several times in elections throughout 2011 and 2012, and even voted twice, in two different states in the presidential election of 2012.

Munroe blamed the voting on being in a “fugue state,” though several emails and texts shared in court show him encouraging friends and family to vote and donate money to candidates.


Three women in Alabama were found guilty of various voter fraud charges in 2015 after tampering with numerous absentee ballots in a City Commissioner race.


Enrico Villamaino, a Republican candidate for state representative pleaded guilty and was convicted in 2013 for various charges in voter fraud in East Longmeadow, Mass.


In Cincinnati, Ohio, a poll worker named Melowese Richardson was convicted on four counts of illegal voting in 2013. Richardson voted twice in the 2012 presidential election, and voted three other times for her sister who is in a coma.

During the trial, Richardson suggested her prosecution may be because she is black and supporting Obama.

Follow Justin on Twitter

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.


N.Y. Times: Rich vote Republican? Maybe not now

(NYTIMES) — For the first time in decades, the wealthy are set to deliver a landslide victory for a Democratic presidential candidate.

While polling data on the rich is imprecise given their small population, polls of the top-earning households favor Hillary Clinton over Donald J. Trump two to one. The July Affluent Barometer survey by Ipsos found that among voters earning more than $100,000 a year — roughly the top 25 percent of households — 45 percent said they planned to vote for Mrs. Clinton, while 28 percent planned to vote for Mr. Trump. The rest were undecided or planned to vote for another candidate.

The spread was even wider among the highest earners. For those earning $250,000 or more — roughly the top 5 percent of households — 53 percent planned to vote for Mrs. Clinton while 25 percent favored Mr. Trump. The survey’s margin of error was plus or minus four points.


Curt Schilling joining Breitbart

(NYMAG) — With it is looking increasingly unlikely Donald Trump will be heading to the White House, the prospect that he will partner with his campaign CEO, Breitbart Executive Chairman Steve Bannon, to launch a Trump TV network seems more and more probable. In the meantime, the right-wing website is staffing up with potential on-air talent.

On Monday, Breitbart plans to announce former Red Sox pitcher and Trump supporter Curt Schilling will begin hosting a daily online radio show featuring political commentary and calls from listeners. The broadcast will eventually include a video livestream. The show marks Schilling’s return to media six months after ESPN fired him for sharing an anti-transgender Facebook post with a message that read: “A man is a man no matter what they call themselves. I don’t care what they are, who they sleep with, men’s room was designed for the penis, women’s not so much. Now you need laws telling us differently? Pathetic.”

“He got kicked off ESPN for his conservative views. He’s a really talented broadcaster,” Breitbart editor in chief Alex Marlow said.


Hillary: ‘I don’t even think about responding’ to Trump anymore

(Politico) Hillary Clinton is so over Donald Trump.

Using some of her most dismissive language of the campaign, Clinton said aboard her campaign plane on Saturday that, “I don’t even think about responding to him anymore” after their third and final debate earlier this week.

Leading in the polls both nationally and in battleground states, Clinton signaled that she and running mate Tim Kaine instead would be focused on making gains for congressional Democrats in the closing stretch of the campaign. Democrats hope to win back the majority in the Senate and some are even dreaming of taking control of the House despite what is currently a historically large Republican majority.


Charges against Sheriff Joe ‘Orwellian beyond imagination,’ says author

Sheriff Joe Arpaio

Sheriff Joe Arpaio

When the U.S. Department of Justice filed criminal contempt charges against Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio on Oct. 17, accusing the well-known lawman of intentionally violating a federal judge’s order not to arrest illegal aliens without evidence they had broken state law, it was beyond even the imagination of George Orwell.

So says Daniel Horowitz, senior editor at Conservative Review.

“Our Founders are rolling over in their graves at the sight of a sheriff being placed on trial for taking common sense steps to protect his state’s sovereignty and applying federal law in cases of reasonable suspicion – laws over which Congress, not the judiciary, has plenary authority,” Horowitz declared in a recent column.

Federal judge Susan Bolton requested the criminal charges at a hearing the previous week. In August, Judge G. Murray Snow of the U.S. District Court of Arizona had referred Arpaio for misdemeanor criminal contempt charges for not obeying a previous court injunction against his practice of apprehending those he reasonably suspected of being in the country illegally.

The injunction grew out of a 2007 class-action lawsuit brought by the ACLU and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund accusing Arpaio of racial profiling.

Horowitz noted the Arizona sheriff is essentially being punished for enforcing federal immigration law within his jurisdiction while violent criminal aliens remain on the run all over Arizona. He called the situation “Orwellian beyond imagination.”

“While thousands of criminal aliens are being released onto the streets of Arizona, Sheriff Arpaio is the one who is facing the prospect of jail time,” Horowitz said. “There is something fundamentally wrong when a state like Arizona is being destroyed by a foreign invasion and local elected officials are hamstrung from defending the state, even though they are following federal law. At the same time, sanctuary cities that thwart federal immigration law are being rewarded by the federal judiciary.”

This is the type of juxtaposition Horowitz writes about in his book “Stolen Sovereignty: How to Stop Unelected Judges From Transforming America.”

“While Arpaio admits to mistakenly violating the injunction, the broader question is how a federal court can issue an injunction against sovereignty laws of a nation using … you guessed it … the Fourteenth Amendment,” Horowitz said. “Arpaio was acting according to federal law, which requires the federal government to respond to state inquiries on an individual’s immigration status [8 U. S. C. §1373c]. Yet, he is potentially facing jail time while illegal aliens chanted ‘Si se puede! Si se puede!’ outside the court house. This is an image and a perverse juxtaposition even Orwell could never have imagined.”

Who REALLY rules America? Stand up against the unelected tyrants in black. Find out how in “Stolen Sovereignty: How to Stop Unelected Judges From Transforming America.” Available now at the WND Superstore!

Adding to the “perverse juxtaposition” is the fact that, as Horowitz pointed out, courts have granted illegal aliens standing to sue over the enforcement of federal immigration laws, but Arpaio was never able to get standing to sue President Obama for violating federal immigration law when he implemented DACA.

Horowitz noted Arpaio has been so tough on illegal immigrants because his jurisdiction is among the most dangerous hotbeds of illegal alien crime in the country. The author shared some facts from his book.

“As of 2013, it was estimated that there were 630,700 illegal aliens residing in Arizona (including American-born anchor babies),” Horowitz wrote. “That is a population of foreign invaders larger than the total population of any single colony at the time of our founding.

“Over 10 percent of the state’s public school population is comprised of illegal alien children. When coupled with the fiscal strain of health care and incarceration, the total cost of illegal immigration is $2.4 billion a year.

“The Arizona Department of Corrections estimates that illegal aliens comprise 17 percent of its prison population and 22 percent of all felony defendants in Maricopa County.

“Arizona has become the drug smuggling capital of the country. From 2010 to 2015, heroin seizures in Arizona have increased by 207 percent, while methamphetamine seizures grew by 310 percent. In FY 2014, there were more pounds of marijuana seized in the Tucson corridor than every other border sector combined.”

The 84-year-old sheriff, who faces up to six months in jail if convicted, will find it tough sledding because of the current makeup of the federal courts, according to Horowitz.

“Arpaio has a grim road ahead of him – as does the entire state of Arizona – if Congress doesn’t strip the courts of their foray into immigration law,” he suggested. “Judge Bolton was the original district judge who placed the injunction on SB 1070, Arizona’s enforcement law. The Ninth Circuit is … well … the Ninth Circuit. And [Chief Justice John] Roberts has already agreed with the five leftists on the court that states must follow the whims of international law and the Obama administration instead of congressional statutes.”

Who REALLY rules America? Stand up against the unelected tyrants in black. Find out how in “Stolen Sovereignty: How to Stop Unelected Judges From Transforming America.” Available now at the WND Superstore!


Legal team blasts Obama abortion-funding scheme


The Obama administration is trying to circumvent federal law with a new rule that purports to be for women’s health, but it would only ensure that tax money continues to be handed over to the abortionists at Planned Parenthood, according to a comment submitted on the plan.

The non-profit Great Lakes Justice Center this week submitted its comment to the federal government on the proposal that states be required to turn over Title X public health program money to abortionists.

WND reported last week the issue was drawing attention because the Obama administration was attempting a “Hail Mary” stunt to ensure Planned Parenthood abortionists get huge amounts of federal funding in the future, even though states have better plans to address women’s health.

“The proposed rule is a parting gift from the Obama administration to Planned Parenthood, at the expense of women’s health,” said Senior Counsel Steven H. Aden of the Alliance Defending Freedom.

“Even though many more publicly funded healthcare centers exist than Planned Parenthood facilities and similar abortion-driven businesses, this rule denies states their right to prioritize funding for more comprehensive, preventive health care clinics on the false assumption that Planned Parenthood is superior simply because it focuses on dispensing birth control,” he said.

The federal Department of Health and Human Services is working on a new rule that would impact how states allocate federal health-care funds.

The new rule would ban state and local public health officials, who get most of the Title X grant money from the federal government, from sending the bulk of the money for family planning programs to public health agencies, such as federally qualified health centers and rural health centers.

To receive funds, they would have to show they can dispense birth control better than Planned Parenthood.

Read the tested and proven strategies to defeat the abortion cartel, in “Abortion Free: Your Manual for Building a Pro-Life America One Community at a Time.”

That’s because the Obama administration wants the federal money to go to Planned Parenthood’s abortionists.

The Great Lakes Justice Center now has joined the conversation, blasting the idea that a federal rule should be created to allocate money to Planned Parenthood, overturning the work from at least 13 states where lawmakers already have adopted plans to use the money for the best available public health care – not necessarily Planned Parenthood.

“The Obama administration wrongly claims that requiring Title X funding to be forwarded to abortion clinics is needed to promote health and safety for women. Of course, no state has any obligation to fund abortions, yet the federal government, in another act of governmental overreach, wishes to force the states to indirectly do so,” the group said.

The group said Title X resources “are successfully used by and widely available at community health centers, hospitals, and other federally qualified medical facilities that would make better and safer use of the funding than Planned Parenthood; and the Obama administration’s proposed rule relies on faulty data that inflates the importance of abortion clinics, such as Planned Parenthood, in the Title X funding scheme.”

“Many of the services that Planned Parenthood claims to perform, such as mammograms, simply do not happen at Planned Parenthood clinics.”

The center argues that Title X, as passed by Congress, “explicitly allows states to withhold or deny funds to Planned Parenthood abortion clinics.”

“The Title X program was not designed as a federal subsidy earmarked for Planned Parenthood, but expects that the funds be directed to ‘a diverse range of provider agencies.’ In practice, a study, cited in the proposed rule, states that in 2010, the country had 8,400 publicly funded clinics, yet only 4,100 of those clinic received Title X funding to provide contraceptive services. Another study, also by the Guttmacher Institute, states that Title X only accounts for 10 percent of family planning appropriations, while Medicaid accounts for 75 percent. Among the total number of Title X funded clinics, the Guttmacher Institute stated that Planned Parenthood made up only about 13 percent of the total available clinics. 53 percent were public health departments, 14 percent of clinics were federally qualified health centers, 5 percent were hospitals, and 15 percent were other independent family planning organizations.

“No evidence is provided that additional Title X funding directed to these additional federally qualified centers would reduce the availability of the drugs, devices, and services provided by Title X. Indeed, with additional funding, these centers could increase their extended and weekend hours, hire additional staff, and have additional resources to make Title X resources more available to the public.”

Further, it said: “States have the right to withhold Title X funding from Planned Parenthood for two reasons. First, Title X gives states, as pass through entities, the right to withhold or deny funds to Planned Parenthood abortion clinics. … The proposed rule addresses Title X funds that go directly to the states and seeks to curtail the states’ discretion to forward the Title X funds. The federal agencies, however, should exercise restraint and deference to the states in this regard. Additionally, the federal government cannot force states to enact federal policy or bear substantial economic consequences for not doing so. National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 132 S.Ct. 2566 (2012). By the agencies’ own numbers, withholding Title X funding from the states would result in huge governmental expenditures.

“Second, states bear no obligation to fund abortion, and federal Title X funds cannot be used to cover the cost of abortion. See, e.g., Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980); United States v. Zbaraz, 448 U.S. 358 (1980). The proposed rule seeks to force the states to funnel Title X monies to the nation’s largest abortion provider, with no authority or basis to do so.”

ADF was joined by the Susan B. Anthony List and the Charlotte Lozier Institute in its comments earlier.

They said: “The proposed rule responds to HHS’s perception that ‘a number of states have taken actions to restrict participation by certain types of providers as subrecipients in the Title X Program, unrelated to the provider’s ability to provide the services required under Title X.’

“HHS contends this has led to disruption or reduction of services. ‘In several instances,’ HHS claims, ‘these restrictions have interfered with the ‘capacity to make rapid and effective’ use of [federal funds].’”

The programs set up by states use a “tiered approach” in which “public and primary/prevention care providers are preferred in the distribution of Title X funds.”

But the Obama administration is infuriated that the programs exclude “providers” who specialize in abortion.

The states’ prioritization systems “have been approved by federal courts for decades,” the groups explain.

“HHS’s proposed rule ‘rigs the game’ against states that desire to utilize Title X funding to increase primary and preventive health care for women by claiming that such policies ‘limit access to high quality family planning services by restricting specific types of providers from participating,’” the groups explain.

“HHS’s proposed rule trammels upon an area traditionally left to the states – state health care policy – and truncates the important task states play in creating innovative and effective new structures for delivery of healthcare services.”

Read the tested and proven strategies to defeat the abortion cartel, in “Abortion Free: Your Manual for Building a Pro-Life America One Community at a Time.”