Tucker Carlson explains how self-reporting survey found nearly 20% of respondents admitted committing some form of voter fraud in the 2020 election.
About 20% of mail-in ballots in the 2020 election were fraudulent, which effectively handed the presidency to Joe Biden, Tucker Carlson reported Friday.
Carlson broke down a survey conducted by the Heartland Institute and Rasmussen which found that approximately 1 in 5 of those polled admitted they committed some form of election fraud in the 2020 election.
The Heartland Institute’s Justin Haskins broke down the survey which asked voters in a roundabout way whether they committed some form of voter fraud.
“We asked people a series of questions, one of the first questions was ‘did you vote in the 2020, and did you vote with an absentee ballot?’ And if they answered yes to both of those questions, then we asked a bunch of questions related to voter fraud. We didn’t tell them that we were asking, ‘did you commit voter fraud?’ We just asked them about various behaviors,” Haskins explained.
Power up with Nitric Boost that’s now 40% OFF! This potent formula gives you the massive edge in strength and superior circulation for that unparalleled performance you’ve been looking for!
“For example, we asked people, ‘did you vote in a state where you’re no longer a legal resident?’ That’s a pretty straightforward question. If you’re not a permanent resident of a state, you can’t vote there. 17% of people, nearly one in five, said yes they did do that.”
“We asked people, ‘did you fill out a ballot for someone else on their behalf?’ That’s also illegal,” he continued. “You’re not allowed to fill out someone else’s ballot. 21% of people said yes to that question.”
“We asked if people forged the signature of a friend or family member on their behalf with or without their permission. We actually put that in the poll question. And 17% of people said yes to that.”
“So all told, it’s at least — and I say at least — 1 in 5 mail-in ballots involved some sort of fraudulent activity,” Haskins added.
To top it off, 10% of those surveyed said they personally know somebody who admitted they committed one of these forms of voter fraud.
Over 43% of 2020 voters cast ballots by mail, the highest percentage in U.S. history, according to election data, and the majority of mail-in ballot voters supported Biden.
Without mail-in ballot fraud, the Heartland Institute concluded Trump would have won 311 electoral votes to Biden’s 227.
Election disinformation takes a big leap with AI being used to deceive worldwide
From Bangladesh to Slovakia, AI-generated deepfakes have been undermining elections around the globe. Experts say their reach and sophistication is a sign of things to come in consequential elections later this year. (March 15)
LONDON (AP) — Artificial intelligence is supercharging the threat of election disinformation worldwide, making it easy for anyone with a smartphone and a devious imagination to create fake – but convincing – content aimed at fooling voters.
It marks a quantum leap from a few years ago, when creating phony photos, videos or audio clips required teams of people with time, technical skill and money. Now, using free and low-cost generative artificial intelligence services from companies like Google and OpenAI, anyone can create high-quality “deepfakes” with just a simple text prompt.
Experts warn AI and deepfakes will likely be worse in the coming elections. Here’s how governments and organizations are responding to the threat.
A wave of AI deepfakes tied to elections in Europe and Asia has coursed through social media for months, serving as a warning for more than 50 countries heading to the polls this year.
“You don’t need to look far to see some people … being clearly confused as to whether something is real or not,” said Henry Ajder, a leading expert in generative AI based in Cambridge, England.
The question is no longer whether AI deepfakes could affect elections, but how influential they will be, said Ajder, who runs a consulting firm called Latent Space Advisory.
As the U.S. presidential race heats up, FBI Director Christopher Wray recently warned about the growing threat, saying generative AI makes it easy for “foreign adversaries to engage in malign influence.”
People are reflected in a window of a hotel at the Davos Promenade in Davos, Switzerland, Jan. 15, 2024. (AP Photo/Markus Schreiber, File)
With AI deepfakes, a candidate’s image can be smeared, or softened. Voters can be steered toward or away from candidates — or even to avoid the polls altogether. But perhaps the greatest threat to democracy, experts say, is that a surge of AI deepfakes could erode the public’s trust in what they see and hear.
Some recent examples of AI deepfakes include:
— A video of Moldova’s pro-Western president throwing her support behind a political party friendly to Russia.
— Audio clips of Slovakia’s liberal party leader discussing vote rigging and raising the price of beer.
— A video of an opposition lawmaker in Bangladesh — a conservative Muslim majority nation — wearing a bikini.
The novelty and sophistication of the technology makes it hard to track who is behind AI deepfakes. Experts say governments and companies are not yet capable of stopping the deluge, nor are they moving fast enough to solve the problem.
As the technology improves, “definitive answers about a lot of the fake content are going to be hard to come by,” Ajder said.
Some AI deepfakes aim to sow doubt about candidates’ allegiances.
In Moldova, an Eastern European country bordering Ukraine, pro-Western President Maia Sandu has been a frequent target. One AI deepfake that circulated shortly before local elections depicted her endorsing a Russian-friendly party and announcing plans to resign.
Moldova’s President Maia Sandu, right, greets Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Bulboaca, Moldova, June 1, 2023.(AP Photo/Vadim Ghirda, File)
Officials in Moldova believe the Russian government is behind the activity. With presidential elections this year, the deepfakes aim “to erode trust in our electoral process, candidates and institutions — but also to erode trust between people,” said Olga Rosca, an adviser to Sandu. The Russian government declined to comment for this story.
China has also been accused of weaponizing generative AI for political purposes.
In Taiwan, a self-ruled island that China claims as its own, an AI deepfake gained attention earlier this year by stirring concerns about U.S. interference in local politics.
The fake clip circulating on TikTok showed U.S. Rep. Rob Wittman, vice chairman of the U.S. House Armed Services Committee, promising stronger U.S. military support for Taiwan if the incumbent party’s candidates were elected in January.
Rep. Rob Wittman, R-Va., questions witnesses during a congressional hearing, on Capitol Hill, Tuesday, Feb. 28, 2023, in Washington.(AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File)
Wittman blamed the Chinese Communist Party for trying to meddle in Taiwanese politics, saying it uses TikTok — a Chinese-owned company — to spread “propaganda.”
A spokesperson for the Chinese foreign ministry, Wang Wenbin, said his government doesn’t comment on fake videos and that it opposes interference in other countries’ internal affairs. The Taiwan election, he stressed, “is a local affair of China.”
BLURRING REALITY
Audio-only deepfakes are especially hard to verify because, unlike photos and videos, they lack telltale signs of manipulated content.
In Slovakia, another country overshadowed by Russian influence, audio clips resembling the voice of the liberal party chief were shared widely on social media just days before parliamentary elections. The clips purportedly captured him talking about hiking beer prices and rigging the vote.
It’s understandable that voters might fall for the deception, Ajder said, because humans are “much more used to judging with our eyes than with our ears.”
In the U.S., robocalls impersonating U.S. President Joe Biden urged voters in New Hampshire to abstain from voting in January’s primary election. The calls were later traced to a political consultant who said he was trying to publicize the dangers of AI deepfakes.
Paul Carpenter describes AI software during an interview in New Orleans, Friday, Feb. 23, 2024. Carpenter says he was hired in January to use AI software to imitate President Joe Biden’s voice to convince New Hampshire Democrat voters not to vote in the state’s presidential primary. (AP Photo/Matthew Hinton, File)
In poorer countries, where media literacy lags, even low-quality AI fakes can be effective.
Such was the case last year in Bangladesh, where opposition lawmaker Rumeen Farhana — a vocal critic of the ruling party — was falsely depicted wearing a bikini. The viral video sparked outrage in the conservative, majority-Muslim nation.
“They trust whatever they see on Facebook,” Farhana said.
Rumeen Farhana, a politician from the main opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) sits for a photograph during an interview at her residence in Dhaka, Bangladesh, Thursday, Feb. 15, 2024. (AP Photo/Al-emrun Garjon)
Experts are particularly concerned about upcoming elections in India, the world’s largest democracy and where social media platforms are breeding grounds for disinformation.
A CHALLENGE TO DEMOCRACY
Some political campaigns are using generative AI to bolster their candidate’s image.
In Indonesia, the team that ran the presidential campaign of Prabowo Subianto deployed a simple mobile app to build a deeper connection with supporters across the vast island nation. The app enabled voters to upload photos and make AI-generated images of themselves with Subianto.
As the types of AI deepfakes multiply, authorities around the world are scrambling to come up with guardrails.
Noudhy Valdryno, the digital coordinator for the campaign team of Indonesian presidential frontrunner Prabowo Subianto, shows the interface of a web application that allows supporters to upload photos to make AI-generated images of them with Subianto, in Jakarta, Indonesia, Wednesday, Feb. 21, 2024. (AP Photo/Dita Alangkara)
The European Union already requires social media platforms to cut the risk of spreading disinformation or “election manipulation.” It will mandate special labeling of AI deepfakes starting next year, too late for the EU’s parliamentary elections in June. Still, the rest of the world is a lot further behind.
The world’s biggest tech companies recently — and voluntarily — signed a pact to prevent AI tools from disrupting elections. For example, the company that owns Instagram and Facebook has said it will start labeling deepfakes that appear on its platforms.
But deepfakes are harder to rein in on apps like the Telegram chat service, which did not sign the voluntary pact and uses encrypted chats that can be difficult to monitor.
Some experts worry that efforts to rein in AI deepfakes could have unintended consequences.
An advertising banner with a slogan about AI is fixed at a building at the Davos Promenade, alongside the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Jan. 18, 2024. (AP Photo/Markus Schreiber, File)
Well-meaning governments or companies might trample on the sometimes “very thin” line between political commentary and an “illegitimate attempt to smear a candidate,” said Tim Harper, a senior policy analyst at the Center for Democracy and Technology in Washington.
Major generative AI services have rules to limit political disinformation. But experts say it remains too easy to outwit the platforms’ restrictions or use alternative services that don’t have the same safeguards.
And software isn’t the only threat. Candidates could try to deceive voters by claiming that real events portraying them in an unfavorable light were manufactured by AI.
“A world in which everything is suspect — and so everyone gets to choose what they believe — is also a world that’s really challenging for a flourishing democracy,” said Lisa Reppell, a researcher at the International Foundation for Electoral Systems in Arlington, Virginia.
Swenson reported from New York. Associated Press writers Julhas Alam in Dhaka, Bangladesh, Krutika Pathi in New Delhi, Huizhong Wu in Bangkok, Edna Tarigan in Jakarta, Indonesia, Dake Kang in Beijing, and Stephen McGrath in Bucharest, Romania, contributed to this report.
United Sovereign Americans is auditing voter registration rolls from a number of states to collect data to show that certain elections are invalid and to prevent the 2024 election from corruption. The problem lies with certifying elections that are not valid or accurate.
The United Sovereign Americans organization is using voter registration rolls as evidence and is filing temporary restraining orders (TROs) against states in order to prevent corruption in the upcoming 2024 election. The plan is for the TROs to force the matter to the Supreme Court as emergency litigation before the 2024 election.
United Sovereign Americans CEO Marly Hornik is a homeschool mother and homesteader in New York. She is involved in auditing voter registration rolls from a number of states to collect data to show that elections that are invalid. Corruption in elections has affected the leadership of our country and the critical infrastructure. The problem lies with certifying elections that are not valid or accurate.
The United Sovereign Americans organization is using voter registration rolls as evidence and is filing temporary restraining orders (TROs) against states in order to prevent corruption in the upcoming 2024 election. She said that TROs may be filed under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by individuals who think that their suffrage (right to vote) has been denied or is about to be denied or abridged. She says it must be done before the election to stop the crime from happening. The plan is for the TROs to force the matter to the US Supreme Court as emergency litigation before the 2024 election.
She gave the example of bizarre results from Illinois 2022 election that included 2.8 million registration records, which are federal documents, that were registered after the vote. Some of the registrations had a year-long record of voting prior to the registration date. Other registrations were backdated, or birth dates were changed. Another problem in Illinois was that there were 27,491 more votes counted than voters who voted. She said that the Illinois voter roll registration database had an error rate of 38% and asked why did the state certified it.
The media has been selling a narrative that makes people believe they live in a blue state, and it is not necessarily true. The corrupt ideology of radical Democrats and RINOs fails to represent the People, and it is on the brink of controlling the electoral college via the voter roll databases and narrative manipulation by the media.
United Sovereign Americans is working to prevent corruption int he 2024 election.
.Additional videos about invalid elections in other states…
Don’t bother to search for this article on Google. When Kari Lake contested the 2022 election results against Katie Hobbs in their race of Arizona governor, she was excoriated over claims that mail-in ballots were handled illegally. Now an Arizona judge has ruled that the “statute is clear and unambiguous”. While Lake’s legal fight continues, this is the crack in the dyke of election fraud.When dust settles on this, it will expose the all dirty, underhanded things that were done to steal thin election in the first place. ⁃ TN Editor
A judge has found that Arizona’s signature matching process for mail-in ballots is unlawful, delivering what the plaintiffs in the lawsuit called a “massive win” for election integrity.
Yavapai County Superior Court Judge John Napper issued a ruling last week (pdf) in a lawsuit against Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes brought by public interest group Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections (RITE), which alleged that Mr. Fontes broke the law regarding mail-in ballot signature verification procedures.
Specifically, the group argued that Mr. Fontes’ interpretation of “registration record” in the Secretary of State’s Elections Procedures Manual was unreasonably broad and improperly expanded the pool of signatures to which an early ballot affidavit signature could be compared, increasing the risk of false positives.
“While state law requires county recorders to match mail-ballot signatures with signatures in the voter’s ‘registration record,’ the Secretary instructed them to use a broader and less reliable universe of comparison signatures,” RITE said in a Sept. 5 statement on the court ruling.
“That means the Secretary was requiring ballots to be counted despite using a signature that did not match anything in the voter’s registration record. This was a clear violation of state law,” the group added.
Former gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake, who sued Mr. Fontes and Maricopa County officials over the signature verification process that was used in last year’s election, took to X to post about the decision.
“A court just found that Arizona’s signature matching process is UNLAWFUL,” Ms. Lake said.
“This is what happens when you don’t back down from a fight,” the Kari Lake War Room account said in a post on X.
Mr. Fontes’ office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the ruling.
Dispute Over ‘Registration Record’
Court documents show that Mr. Fontes argued that the legal definition of “registration record” is ambiguous and so he is entitled to provide guidance on its interpretation.
“Does the legislature’s use of the expansive term registration ‘record’ really mean the more restrictive (but unused) term registration ‘form’ for purposes of verifying a signature on an early voted ballot,” reads a motion to dismiss (pdf) the RITE lawsuit filed by Mr. Fontes’ attorneys.
“The answer is ‘no,’” the attorneys argued, listing reasons that include the Secretary of State’s statutory authority to conduct elections fairly and impartially.
But the judge disagreed with the reasoning.
“This argument fails because there is no ambiguity in the statute,” Mr. Napper wrote in his opinion.
He added that the Arizona “statute is clear and unambiguous” in that it requires the recorder to “review the voter’s registration card” and not other documents bearing the voter’s signature.
Mr. Napper also noted that Mr. Fontes’ signature-matching process in the Election Procedures Manual “contradicts the plain language” of Arizona elections laws by allowing signature matching with documents that have “nothing to do with the act of registering.”
Accordingly, the judge denied Mr. Fontes’ motion to dismiss the lawsuit.
In a statement, Derek Lyons, CEO of RITE, called the decision a “huge victory toward securing the elections that Arizonans deserve, which are elections they can trust.”
“RITE will build on this victory to continue to fight in court for elections that are administered according to democratically enacted laws, not illegal partisan commands,” he added.
The group said in a statement that the ruling shows that Mr. Fontes must change his signature verification procedures before the next election to “protect the integrity of Arizona’s mail-in balloting process” or face further legal consequences.
It’s unclear whether the ruling will have any implications for Ms. Lake’s lawsuit against Mr. Fontes and Maricopa County officials over the signature verification process that was used in last year’s gubernatorial election.
A judge in May dismissed Ms. Lake’s lawsuit but she filed an appeal (pdf), which is ongoing before the Arizona Court of Appeals.
