It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Nineteen Foreign Nationals Charged for Voting in 2016 Election and why Dems want ICE gone

page: 3
35
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

It was disbanded because democratic controlled states wouldnt comply.

Hence the reason it went to ice. Hence the reason democrats want to abolish ice.




posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 07:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: XAnarchistX
Look, Democrats don't want ICE gone, even the DSA candidates have said they want the ICE as an organisation abolished, but not deportation, they still want "strong borders" and a reform of the system

rightists are using this as propaganda, but it is dishonest, and the Left politicians are using activists to gain votes, it is what they always do


Really?

House Democrats vote 'present' on resolution supporting ICE

Most House Democrats voted “present” Tuesday on a resolution aimed at forcing them to clarify whether they support U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, after some Democrats have criticized the agency's role in enforcing U.S. immigration laws.

The House passed a nonbinding resolution saying lawmakers support the "officers and personnel who carry out the important mission of the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement." A two-thirds majority was needed to pass it, and because Democrats voted "present" instead of "no," it passed easily in a 244-35 vote.

The final vote saw just 18 Democrats vote for the resolution, and 34 Democrats vote against it. But the vast majority of Democrats, 133, voted "present."


They voted present which means Democrats couldnt be bothered to support keeping ice. 34 Democrats voted to abolish ice.



posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra


It was disbanded because democratic controlled states wouldnt comply.
Is Arizona a democrat controlled state? Maryland? Mississippi? How about Nebraska and Montana? North Dakota? South Dakota. Tennessee?
en.wikipedia.org...

States' rights. Right?


edit on 8/25/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra


It was disbanded because democratic controlled states wouldnt comply.
Is Arizona a democrat controlled state? Maryland? Mississippi? How about Nebraska and Montana? North Dakota? South Dakota. Tennessee?
en.wikipedia.org...

States' rights. Right?


Arizona - State law prohibits the release.
Maryland - State law prohibits the release.
Mississippi - State law prohibits the release.
Nebraska - Most of the info requested is a matter of public record .


tate of Play: Where do the states stand?

Alabama: "This office will not share any information not already available to the public. ..." Secretary of State John Merrill said in a statement Friday. "The Secretary of State's Office will comply with the request if we are convinced that the overall effort will produce the necessary results to accomplish the Commission's stated goal without compromising the integrity of the voter rolls and the elections process in Alabama."

Alaska: The Division of Elections will release only public information, according to a press release from Lt. Gov. Byron Mallott Friday. "State law allows only some information to be public. Public information does not include: last four numbers of SSN, date of birth, or residence address," among other data.

Arizona: "We will only make available the same redacted information that is available to the general public through a public records request," Secretary of State Michele Reagan said in a statement Friday. "Social security numbers, Date of Birth and identifying information such as Mother's maiden name will not be transmitted. Arizona's voters can expect to have their personal information remain private and safe."

Arkansas: "We have not yet received a letter. When we do, we will review it," Assistant Director of Communications and Education Chris Powell told CNN Monday, adding, "We're keeping an eye out for it."

California: "I will not provide sensitive voter information to a commission that has already inaccurately passed judgment that millions of Californians voted illegally. ..." Secretary of State Alex Padilla said in a statement Thursday. "California's participation would only serve to legitimize the false and already debunked claims of massive voter fraud made by the President, the Vice President, and Mr. Kobach. The President's Commission is a waste of taxpayer money and a distraction from the real threats to the integrity of our elections today: aging voting systems and documented Russian interference in our elections."

Colorado: "We are very glad they are asking for information before making decisions. I wish more federal agencies would ask folks for their opinion and for information before they made decisions," Secretary of State Wayne Williams said in a press release Thursday, which noted that his office will release voter-roll information that is public under state law but withhold data that is confidential.

Connecticut: "Given Secretary Kobach's history we find it very difficult to have confidence in the work of this Commission," Secretary of State Denise Merrill said in a statement Thursday.

Delaware: "Releasing this information to the White House would not serve the mission of safeguarding the fairness and integrity of elections in Delaware and would not be in the best interests of Delaware voters," said State Election Commissioner Elaine Manlove said in a statement Monday. Sec. of State Jeffrey Bullock echoed the sentiment in the same statement: "Delaware will not be a party to this disingenuous and inappropriate campaign against one of the nation's foundational institutions."

Florida: "We have received the letter. We are reviewing it," Director of Communications Sarah Revell told CNN Monday. The Florida Senate, meanwhile, has written letter in opposition to the commission's request.

Georgia: "The Georgia Secretary of State's Office will provide the publicly available voter list," Press Secretary Candice L. Broce told CNN Friday. "As specified in Georgia law, the public list does not contain a registered voter's driver's license number, social security number, month and day of birth, site of voter registration, phone number, or email address."

Hawaii: No response to CNN.

Idaho: State Election Director Betsie Kimbrough said the office will provide what is legally allowed under state law if Secretary of State Lawerence Denney determines the request complies with Idaho public records rules, The Virginian-Pilot and Idaho State Journal reported Friday. "Information about driver's license numbers, the last four digits of Social Security numbers and date of births are not released even though that data is collected on registration forms," the Virginian-Pilot article said. "Kimbrough said the commission's request will be treated like any other records request from the public, adding that Idaho's voter roll is routinely provided to political campaigns, the press and other groups that ask for it."

Illinois: The Illinois State Board of Elections has not yet received the letter, a spokesperson told CNN Monday.

Indiana: "Indiana law doesn't permit the Secretary of State to provide the personal information requested by Secretary Kobach," Secretary of State Connie Lawson tweeted Friday. "Under Indiana public records laws, certain voter info is available to the public, the media and any other person who requested the information for non-commercial purposes. The information publicly available is name, address and congressional district assignment.

Iowa: "We will follow that process if a request is made that complies with Iowa law. ..." Secretary of State Paul Pate tweeted Friday. "However, providing personal voter information, such as Social Security numbers, is forbidden under Iowa Code."

Kansas: "Only "publicly available" information will be shared with the Commission," Secretary Kobach's spokeswoman Samantha Poetter told CNN Friday. "Any person in Kansas can obtain it. It is the basic information -- name, address, etc. -- not the sensitive information like last four SSN. That information is not publicly available, and therefore it is not part of the request."

Kentucky: "As the Commonwealth's Secretary of State and chief election official, I do not intend to release Kentuckians' sensitive personal data to the federal government. ..." Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes said in a statement Friday. "The president created his election commission based on the false notion that "voter fraud" is a widespread issue -- it is not. Indeed, despite bipartisan objections and a lack of authority, the President has repeatedly spread the lie that three to five million illegal votes were cast in the last election. Kentucky will not aid a commission that is at best a waste of taxpayer money and at worst an attempt to legitimize voter suppression efforts across the country."



posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra


It was disbanded because democratic controlled states wouldnt comply.



posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Louisiana: "The President's Commission has quickly politicized its work by asking states for an incredible amount of voter data that I have, time and time again, refused to release," Secretary of State Tom Schedler said in a statement Monday. "My response to the Commission is, you're not going to play politics with Louisiana's voter data, and if you are, then you can purchase the limited public information available by law, to any candidate running for office. That's it."

Maine: "Maine citizens can be confident that our office will not release any data that is protected under Maine law, to the commission or any other requesting entity," Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap said in a press release Friday. The statement noted that Maine law allows the release of the voter's name, year of birth, residence address, mailing address, voter status, voter record number and any special designations indicating uniformed service voters, overseas voters or township voters, but not Social Security number.

Maryland: "The assistant attorneys general representing SBE have considered the request and have determined the disclosure is prohibited by law," Attorney General Brian Frosh said in a tweet Monday, adding in a second tweet, "I find this request repugnant; appears designed only 2 intimidate voters and 2 indulge the President's fantasy that he won the popular vote."

Massachusetts: The state's voter registry is not a public record and information in it will not be shared with the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, Communications Director Brian S. McNiff told CNN Friday.

Michigan: "As in most other states, Michigan law does provide for disclosure of some basic public voter information," Secretary Ruth Johnson's office said in a Facebook post Monday. "Political parties, candidates and news organizations routinely request and receive this data. State law for decades has allowed anyone to review voter lists to ensure election integrity. ... Michigan will certainly not go beyond what is legally required in any response to this data request, and we are highly sensitive to people's desires to keep what is private as private."

Minnesota: "I will not hand over Minnesota voters' sensitive personal information to the commission," Secretary of State Steve Simon said in a statement Friday. "As I've said before, I have serious doubts about the commission's credibility and trustworthiness. Its two co-chairs have publicly backed President Trump's false and irresponsible claim that millions of ineligible votes were cast in the last election. They, along with other recent appointees, appear to have a strong interest in steering the commission toward their predetermined conclusions and outcomes. I fear that the commission risks becoming a partisan tool to shut out millions of eligible American voters."

Mississippi: "My reply would be: They can go jump in the Gulf of Mexico, and Mississippi is a great State to launch from," Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann said in a statement Friday. "Mississippi residents should celebrate Independence Day and our State's right to protect the privacy of our citizens by conducting our own electoral processes."

Missouri: "The commission's letter asks for 'publicly-available' information, which we would share with any person or organization making an open records request," Secretary of State John Ashcroft said in a statement Friday. "We will protect Missourians' private information. The laws of each state are different, and in Missouri, some of the data requested by the commission is open to the public. We plan to comply by providing publicly-available information per state law. The commission's questions are fair and we will be glad to assist in offering our thoughts on these important matters. I look forward to working with Sec. Kris Kobach and the commission on its findings and offer our support in the collective effort to enhance the American people's confidence in the integrity of the elections process."

Montana: Secretary of State Corey Stapleton won't release voters' birthdays or Social Security numbers to the president's commission on election integrity, director of elections and voter services Derek Oestreicher told the Independent Record Friday.

Nebraska: "The Secretary of State has not had a chance to review the request submitted," a spokesperson told CNN Monday.

Nevada: "While this request has understandably raised concerns with privacy advocates, voter registration information in Nevada is generally available for public inspection under state law, including name, address, date of birth, and whether the voter participated in a prior election," Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske said in a statement Friday. "Election officials in Nevada do, however, collect certain information that is not considered a public record under state law and is therefore not available for public inspection. This information includes: Social Security Number; Driver's License Number; DMV Identification Card Number; and Email Address."

New Hampshire: "There's no information (here) someone can't publicly get anyway," Secretary of State Bill Gardner told the Concord Monitor Friday. "People have the right to purchase it, only what's public by law."

New Jersey: No response to CNN.

New Mexico: "My office has not yet received the letter from President Trump's election commission requesting the personal information of New Mexico voters," Democratic Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver said in a statement Friday. "That being said, I will never release the personally identifiable information of New Mexico voters protected by law, including their social security number and birthdate. Further, I will not release any other voter information like names, addresses or voting history unless and until I am convinced the information will not be used for nefarious or unlawful purposes, and only if I am provided a clear plan for how it will be secured."

New York: "The electoral process is sacred and New York law has strong safeguards in place to prevent sharing of sensitive voter data and harassment against those who exercise their right to vote...New York refuses to perpetuate the myth voter fraud played a role in our election...We will not be complying with this request and I encourage the Election Commission to work on issues of vital importance to voters, including ballot access, rather than focus on debunked," said Governor Andrew Cuomo in a statement Friday.

North Carolina: "Integrity of our elections is critical, and a recent State Board of Elections investigation already found there was no evidence of significant voter fraud in North Carolina," Gov. Roy Cooper said in a statement on Twitter Friday. "My staff has told the State Board of Elections that we should not participate in providing sensitive information beyond what is public record as it is unnecessary, and because I have concerns that it is an effort to justify the President's false claims about voter fraud."

North Dakota: In an email to CNN Friday, Deputy Secretary of State Jim Silrum said: "We will answer those questions on the survey that North Dakota law allows us to answer."



posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra


It was disbanded because democratic controlled states wouldnt comply.



posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Ohio: "After each of the last three federal elections, I instructed the bipartisan boards of elections to conduct a review of credible allegations of voter fraud and voter suppression" Secretary of State Jon Husted said in a statement Friday. "The results of this review is already in the public domain and available to the Commission. Additionally, voter registration information is a public record and is available online. The Confidential information, such as the last four digits of a voter's Social Security number or their Ohio driver license number is not publicly available and will not be provided to the Commission. In responding to the Commission, we will have ideas on how the federal government can better support states in running elections. However, we will make it clear that we do not want any federal intervention in our state's right and responsibility to conduct elections. Every Sec. of State in the country should welcome the opportunity to describe what they do to ensure the integrity of the elections in their respective states."

Oklahoma: "Full or partial Social Security numbers are not publicly available under Oklahoma law," said Bryan Dean, public information officer for the Oklahoma State Election Board, in an email to CNN Friday. "We will provide the Commission with the publicly-available information they requested, just as we would anyone who requested the information. We are required to provide public information upon request under the Oklahoma Open Records Act. We commonly get requests for our voter list. I would estimate I get at least two or three requests per day for it. We have instructions available on our website for requesting that data."

Oregon: "Oregon policy prohibits disclosure of some of the information you requested, such as social security numbers and drivers' license numbers ..." Secretary of State Dennis Richardson said in a letter Friday. "It is my duty to follow these statutes. Oregon law provides that any person may receive a statewide list of electors upon payment of $500. It is a violation of Oregon law for voter registration data to be used for commercial purposes."

Pennsylvania: "In addition, I have serious reservations about the true intentions of this effort in light of the false statements this administration has made regarding voting integrity, the historical suppression of voting rights, and the way that such data has been used in the past ..." Gov. Tom Wolf said in a letter Friday. "That said, like any citizen, you are welcome to purchase the publicly available voter file from the Pennsylvania Department of State. It can be purchased at pavoterservices.pa.gov for $20."

Rhode Island: "We are reviewing Secretary Kobach's request for information" Secretary of State Nellie M. Gorbea said in a statement Friday. "I will safeguard the privacy of Rhode Island voters and respond only with data that is already publicly available. I will not release social security information or any information that was requested by Secretary Kobach regarding felony status, military status, or overseas citizen information."

South Carolina: "By law, the SC Election Commission maintains the list of registered voters for all 46 counties (1/3) ... They are required to make the list available to the public upon request and Social Security numbers are never disclosed (2/3) ... Constitution ensures voters ballot choices will always be secret. Americans have died protecting this freedom (3/3)," Gov. Henry McMaster tweeted in a string of statements Monday. According to The Post and Courier, however, South Carolina officials had not received a letter from the commission as of Friday. A senior official confirmed to CNN Monday evening: "The SC Elections Commission is responsible for the data but the governor is supportive of making all public information available to the president's advisory committee. All information that is readily available to the general public should be made available to the committee."

South Dakota: Secretary of State Shantel Krebs' spokesman, Jason Williams, said in an email to the Associated Press that Krebs "will not share voter information with the commission."

Tennessee: "Although I appreciate the commission's mission to address election-related issues, like voter fraud, Tennessee state law does not allow my office to release the voter information requested to the federal commission," tweeted Secretary of State Tre Hargett.

Texas: According to the Associated Press on Friday, Texas election officials will provide public voter information to the election commission. While Secretary of State Rolando Pablos didn't list what records would be sent to the commission, he said in a statement he will protect private information.

Utah: "Ensuring the integrity of the election process is the highest priority of my office," Lt. Gov. Spencer J. Cox said in a statement Friday. "There has been no evidence of mass voter fraud in Utah and we look forward to helping the federal government better understand the steps we have taken to ensure the security and validity of Utah's elections. ... While my office is required to provide public records to this Commission, as we would to any other person or entity, I assure the voters of Utah that we will only provide information that is otherwise available to the public."

Vermont: "I wholeheartedly disagree with premise of this Commission: namely, that there is widespread voter fraud," Secretary of State James C. Condos said in a statement Friday. "There is no evidence of the kind of massive fraud alleged by President Trump, Vice President Pence or Secretary of State Kobach. I believe these unproven claims are an effort to set the stage to weaken our democratic process through a systematic national effort of voter suppression and intimidation. ... My focus is to protect Vermont citizens from bogus attacks on our democracy. I will not release any more information about Vermont voters than is available to any citizen requesting our voter file."

Virginia: "I have no intention of honoring this request," Gov. Terry McAuliffe said in a statement Thursday. "Virginia conducts fair, honest, and democratic elections, and there is no evidence of significant voter fraud in Virginia. This entire commission is based on the specious and false notion that there was widespread voter fraud last November. At best this commission was set up as a pretext to validate Donald Trump's alternative election facts, and at worst is a tool to commit large-scale voter suppression."

Washington: "We are required by law to provide public records upon request," Sec. of State Kim Wyman tweeted Thursday. "Other requests from fed elections commission will be considered thoughtfully. ... Info that is NOT public record=your SS# (even last 4), DL #, phone #, email, language preference. We ensure this info remains private."

West Virginia: "Number one, we've never received a letter," Secretary of State Mac Warner's communications director, Mike Queen, told the Charleston Gazette-Mail Friday. "Number two, we can't see whether every state has received a letter, I don't know what states were selected or anything like that, but we haven't received it. Number three, we would never release Social Security numbers."



posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Wisconsin: "Wisconsin statutes do not permit the state to release a voter's date of birth, driver license number or Social Security number," said Michael Haas, administrator of the Wisconsin Elections Commission, said in a statement Friday. "State statutes permit the WEC to share confidential information in limited circumstances with law enforcement agencies or agencies of other states. The Presidential Commission does not appear to qualify under either of these categories. The WEC does not have the discretion to deny a request for the public information in the voter registration database if the required fee is paid. By administrative rule, the price is $12,500 for the entire statewide voter file, and Wisconsin law does not contain any provision for waiving the fee for voter data."

Wyoming: "I'm going to decline to provide any Wyoming voter information," Secretary of State Ed Murray told the Casper Star-Tribune on Monday. "It's not sitting well with me. ... Elections are the responsibility of states under the Constitution. I'm wondering if this request could lead to some federal overreach. ... I have not experienced any secretary of state who has expressed any concerns or worry about fraud or some type of nefarious activity occurring that jeopardizes their respective election process."



posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 08:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra


It was disbanded because democratic controlled states wouldnt comply.



Wyoming: "I'm going to decline to provide any Wyoming voter information," Secretary of State Ed Murray told the Casper Star-Tribune on Monday. "It's not sitting well with me. ... Elections are the responsibility of states under the Constitution. I'm wondering if this request could lead to some federal overreach. ... I have not experienced any secretary of state who has expressed any concerns or worry about fraud or some type of nefarious activity occurring that jeopardizes their respective election process."


Is Wyoming a blue state?
State's rights. Indeed.

edit on 8/25/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 08:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra


It was disbanded because democratic controlled states wouldnt comply.




and it is correct. Read your wikipedia sources.



posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 08:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

What part of state law prohibits the release to other states saying they wont comply because most of the info is already a matter of public record?

7 lawsuits were filed and dismissed because the letter and follow up letter were requests and not requirements. In the cases I raised state law doesnt prohibit the release and the blue states in question refused.
edit on 25-8-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra



Read your wikipedia sources.

Good advice.

Wyoming: "I'm going to decline to provide any Wyoming voter information," Secretary of State Ed Murray told the Casper Star-Tribune on Monday. "It's not sitting well with me. ... Elections are the responsibility of states under the Constitution. I'm wondering if this request could lead to some federal overreach. ... I have not experienced any secretary of state who has expressed any concerns or worry about fraud or some type of nefarious activity occurring that jeopardizes their respective election process."




posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 08:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra




What part of state law prohibits the release to other states saying they wont comply because most of the info is already a matter of public record?
What federal law requires it?
edit on 8/25/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 08:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

yes indeed.

The courts ruled its not an overreach. Hence the reason the 7 suits to stop the commission were rejected by the courts.



posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 08:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra




What part of state law prohibits the release to other states saying they wont comply because most of the info is already a matter of public record?
What federal law requires it?


What part of state law prohibiting and the courts ruling the commission requested the info confuses you?



posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 08:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

That statement confuses me.

As does the claim that the commission had to be disbanded because blue states refused to provide data.

edit on 8/25/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 08:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra

That statement confuses me.

As does the claim that the commission had to be disbanded because blue states refused to provide data.


Of course it did.. Because you immediately ignored the info and instead moved the goal post to a federal law. As I explained it to you (a few times now) the info was a REQUEST. That is why the courts threw out the legal challenges to them asking for the info. At the state level certain states laws prohibit the release. Other states declined because the info is already public record. Some states declined unless they were paid for the info.


On January 3, 2018, two weeks after the court order instructing the commission to share its working documents with its Democratic members, the Trump administration disbanded the commission. In the disbanding announcement, Trump blamed states for not handing over requested voter information to the commission, and still maintained that there was "substantial evidence of voter fraud".[154][159] Press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement that "rather than engage in endless legal battles at taxpayer expense," Trump abolished the panel and turned the matter over to the Department of Homeland Security.[160] Election integrity experts argued that the commission was disbanded because of the lawsuits, which would have led to greater transparency and accountability in the commission and thus prevented the Republican members of the commission from producing a sham report to justify restrictions on voting rights,[153] and that oversight by a cabinet-level agency such as DHS could preclude open meetings and requests for compliance with public records laws.[15]


Both Democrats.

Supported by blue states and judge shopping to tie the commission up in legal eternity to stop it.

Hence the reason it went to ICE and hence the reason Democrats want to abolish ice.
edit on 25-8-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

The commission was a witch hunt. Ill concieved and very badly managed.

Deal with it.

edit on 8/25/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 08:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra

The commission was a witch hunt. Ill concieved and very badly managed.

Deal with it.


Democrats scream about election integrity and then do everything in their power to prevent any fixes from occurring because it would affect their voter base.

The commission was disbanded due to Democrats.
The mandate was transferred to Ice because of Democrats.
Democrats want to abolish ice.

Deal with it.

and since when have Democrats ever been opposed to a witch hunt? Evidence to date says they like them.
edit on 25-8-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)







 
35
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join