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.

 

Orga­nized Vot­er Fraud Ring in North Fort Worth Busted

page: 1
18

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2018 @ 08:41 PM
link   
Go AG Paxton!

It appears Texas is finally getting a bit serious on voter fraud and has busted up another voter fraud ring targeting the elderly. It appears over the last few years they have charged 130 people with various voter fraud related crimes. Finally, someone is at least attempting to address this instead of just saying it doesn't exist.


www.texasattorneygeneral.gov...




The defendants – all members of an organized voter fraud ring – were paid to target elderly voters in certain north-side Fort Worth precincts in a scheme to generate a large number of mail ballots, and then harvest those ballots for specific candidates in 2016.

Vote harvesting is accomplished generally in two phases: seeding and harvesting. In the seeding phase, applications for mail ballot are proliferated in order to blanket targeted precincts with mail ballots. Then, when ballots are mailed out by the election offices, harvesters attempt either to intercept the ballots outright, or to “assist” elderly voters in voting their ballots while ensuring that the votes are cast for the candidates of the harvesters’ choice. In most cases, the voters do not even know their votes have been stolen.

From 2005-2017, the attorney general’s office prosecuted 97 defendants for numerous voter fraud violations. This year alone, Attorney General Paxton’s Election Fraud Unit – with assistance from a criminal justice grant from the governor’s office – has prosecuted 33 defendants for a total of 97 election fraud violations.


edit on 12-10-2018 by infolurker because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 12 2018 @ 09:10 PM
link   
Would have been fun to see which party was the primary beneficiary of this fraud. Did the AG purposely leave that info out of the report?



posted on Oct, 12 2018 @ 10:15 PM
link   
I am sure that Texas is not the only place this is going on. I also do not think it is related to only one party, but lately I think that the Democrats are doing it more. Here the Democratic phone calls tend to intimidate people into voting for the Democratic candidates by spewing twisted information and saying things like "so you approve of taking rights away from women who could die from their pregnancy by voting Republican" No Republican actions have targeted women who have pregnancies where the woman's life is in jeopardy.

I have answered the phone for Republican payed surveys too that have mildly hinted things. But none even close to what some Democratic surveys are saying. I wonder if these surveys are even real or if someone is paying people to try to shift political focus with fake surveys.



posted on Oct, 12 2018 @ 11:13 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

The same problem was addressed in the Dallas area earlier this year or late last year.

I graduated from High School in North Fort Worth and there were more hispanic's (legal or generational as they had no accent) in our school than most.

i can see that area being a target, esp with families coming in. Back in the day(60's) we were all one. Didn't really care where you were from. A friend was a friend.



posted on Oct, 13 2018 @ 05:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zrtst
Would have been fun to see which party was the primary beneficiary of this fraud. Did the AG purposely leave that info out of the report?


The poster child for the Democrats did say, “we can’t be civil until we win”. I take that as a declaration of, We will not play by the rules unless we are in control of everything.



posted on Oct, 13 2018 @ 05:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zrtst
Would have been fun to see which party was the primary beneficiary of this fraud. Did the AG purposely leave that info out of the report?


Not that anyone, anywhere is in any doubt whatsoever about which party was the primary beneficiary. There’s only ONE party that NEEDS to do this to win. And only ONE party that firmly believes this is acceptable.




top topics
 
18

log in

join