She Thought She’d STOLEN THE ELECTION… UNTIL TODAY

Did they come down here and pay you to vote?

Yes.So, reports are coming out of California that the needy are being paid to vote.Meanwhile, election results here take weeks to calculate and while officials defend this process as working as designed, it's a process that has seen candidates who were in tears on election night emerge victorious later.And now, the Department of Justice is looking into what they say.are credible allegations and evidence of wrongdoing.

They said you're coming to vote for these candidates.Yes, sir.I told you who to vote for.Karen Bass.Karen Bass.

DDHQ projected Nithya Raman will pull ahead of reality TV star Spencer Pratt.And here's why Trump's angry, because on election night, Pratt was a solid second.Raman was once a distant third place, and she herself thought she was done.

And this is the California vote counting slog in action.Behind me, a group just went on break.And off in the distance, you see another group.

I don't think there's wide scale fraud.I think there's the potential of it because we can't, you know, we do ballot harvesting.We do all the mail in stuff.We do all the stuff that fraudsters could exploit.So we could fix the problem by just doing it how other states did it.

I think that the election was rigged against Spencer Pratt.You have election fraud that's already been discovered in California with them paying homeless people to register.And then on top of that, you have all the So in California, there's a big difference between when the election happens and when everything gets wrapped up.And that's got people asking questions, including the Department of Justice.But even though nobody involved in this process has been convicted of anything right now, nobody watching what's happening here feels good about it.Except, of course, the folks who will advance to the next round of these highly contested elections.

After all, how could they feel bad about a system in which they were victorious?Now, of course, just because someone won does not mean there's a problem.But the entire country saw how candidate Nithya Raman gave what to many looked like a tearful speech to only see her stage a comeback no poll indicated she was capable of.Now, again, that doesn't mean the system is fraudulent, but There's been other weird things happening in California as well.with recent instances of people being convicted for paying people for votes.On top of that, the Department of Justice is looking into California's vote counting system, because things here are not done the way they are done in other states.

And even if the system is ironclad, if it takes three weeks to count votes, a system that takes that long is going to need protection for that entire time, as the chain of execution takes a lot longer, which makes it a tempting target for the wrong people.And that's the real reason the Department of Justice is now getting involved and they're saying they've got credible allegations that something really wrong has happened here, which they can't reveal yet, but which have brought them to start looking around and digging, which is why every American needs to look into the explosive interviews with the homeless who insist they are still getting money in exchange for something and how state officials at the highest levels who were under federal investigation may have knowingly or unknowingly set up a system that behaves unexpectedly.like this.

are thought she was done.

That's very strange.Now, I cannot remember a time when a candidate went out there on election night and essentially admitted defeat to then come back and stage one of the biggest political comebacks in history.Does that mean there's fraud?No, that's not evidence, but it's just very weird.I can't remember this ever happening before.

Every person in this room is fighting for in this campaign has been about building a city that's worthy of you.every child in the city.

There's another problem certain news organizations are pointing out.Watch this.

Very much the case, Nicole.And this is the California vote counting slog in action.Behind me, a group just went on break.And off in the distance, you see another group.This is the extraction process where workers physically take the ballots out of envelopes for the the signature verification process.The work here is expected.

So I don't know if you've ever been to a bank or a car dealership or even T -Mobile, but no place that handles paperwork from anybody has it laying around in bins.Now, I realize this is a postal operation and a vote tabulating system all in one, but just This doesn't look organized or secure.You have stuff that's all over the place.You have someone sweeping the floors in front of what could be sensitive voting information.Do accidents happen?Does stuff get knocked over?

Does stuff get put in the wrong place?Now, in full transparency, you can see into this vote counting operation.There are election observers who are supposed to watch out for that stuff.But because this is such a long, drawn out process, people are starting to ask questions.But before we get into why this is important,those are.

I've been propositioned with bank fraud, phone fraud, voter fraud.

What's going on with this situation with the homeless?Because someone was just convicted but according to the New York Post, it's still going on.

Uh, Karen Bassett.

Is her last name Bassett?

Karen Bass, yeah.Or Nithya Raman?

Uh, Karen.

Karen?They told you to vote for Karen?

Yeah.They had to sign a little thing.

And how much did they pay you?

Just like two bucks.

Two bucks?Wow.Oh, to sign off on a thing?To vote for her?Yeah.They say, oh, do you want to vote for Karen or Nithya?

Or they just really just tell you to vote for Karen, huh?They gave you an optional choice, but they tell you who they want you to vote for.Oh, wow.They tell you who you want to vote for.

He says he bargained up and was able to get $4.Now, this again until someone is convicted.These are all allegations, but why would three different people all come out and tell a journalist the exact same story and say that they were paid very small amounts of money?This does line up with a conviction that recently happened where a woman pled guilty doing the exact sort of thing that's happening here.But the other part of this that's very interesting is just because this happened, that in and of itself is not proof that perhaps the candidate that benefited from it had something to do with it.Now, definitely people are going to say, hey, there's got to be a connection.

They're telling people on the street to vote a certain way.And then that candidate gets the vote.Of course, there's a connection.Well, there may be.That's why the Department of Justice is getting involved in all of this.

Still circulating online.Even the mayoral candidate, Spencer Pratt, pointed out that the amount at one time, the difference between him and Nithya Raman was about the same amount of people that are homeless in the city of Los Angeles.So that had us start looking into what exactly are the rules, especially after some information was put out there saying that there are more peopleThat's weird.is to get that person registered to vote in the area, in the district that they live.So if you look at voter registrations and you see that one particular homeless shelter has more people registered to vote than beds they have, that's not unusual.

That would be common with somebody who at one point lived there or still gets mail there.

And that - So apparently everything that's happening in California is by the rules.But what's interesting about that is these rules almost seem as if they lend themselves to conspiracy theories, if you could put it that way.No, we don't have proof yet.that something has happened here, but this isn't something that only a few people have questions about.Watch.

and so far upstream, it is impossible to prove.But I think everybody knows instinctively something is wrong here.

So you've got elected officials, you've got people on the internet, you've got candidates.Everyone says that just something is wrong.And you know what would end all of this?A federal investigation.And that's why the Justice Department is getting involved.Because regardless of the outcome here, what needs to happen is it needs to be made sure and made certain that there's no foul play.

That's the only thing people have a problem with here is the idea that there is something wrong going on and that somebody wants something they weren't entitled to.That's what everybody watching this has a problem with.And the idea that that could be happening is what has people talking.And we've also seen other strange allegations over the last few months that make you ask even more questions.

The issue is how the election was designed.Democrats created California's election laws to ensure they always win.Things like unlimited ballot harvesting, people going out and finding ballots and bringing them in, totally legal in California, not in most other states.100 % vote by mail, meaning every registered voter gets a ballot.Often dead people, often people who move.That means there's a lot of extra ballots floating around.

No ID needed to vote or to register.These types of policies allowed a woman to register her dog to vote and the dog voted multiple times.They only caught her because she turned herself in.Here is a picture of Maya the dog with an I voted sticker on it and Maya the dog's name.

So the thing that this has people asking questions about is if someone deliberately tries to exploit the system and it's not caught, what does that mean?This person turned themselves in.They did it to apparently document this process and expose flaws with the process.It looks like they've gone and done that.But people are saying, hey, if this dog was able to do this, is this happening?Are other people's pets engaging in the same behavior?

See, this is what people want to have happen.answers to.But what about the system of counting the votes itself?Why does it take so long?Is that an anomaly?Is that how it's designed?

And what are the powers that be saying about that?

California's robust mail -in ballot system means every eligible registered voter gets a ballot delivered to their doorstep.

To try to make it as easy as possible for voters to participate in their district.

After election day, officials now have 13 days to count ballots under a new law by Assemblymember Mark Berman, down from 30 days.

Probably more than we can do to count those ballots faster, but that does not mean that there's fraud in our elections.

Those claims amplified by President Donald Trump and other Republican leaders.

So the allegation here is that you've got this system that does things that no other system does.The idea that every single registered voter has a ballot mailed to them, yes, does that increase participation in elections?Absolutely.But now you've got to have a whole separate verification process for that in a way that was never around for mail -in ballots.As somebody that grew up in the 90s, I remember when votes used to be counted and tallied on election night.And there were mail -in ballots back then, but they were such a small percentage of the overall vote.

you would still know who won on election night because you could say, well, since 90 % of people were voting in person on election night, if we have results from that and we know how many outstanding mail -in ballots there are, we know if those need to come in or not to even affect the result of this materially.So people have more confidence in a system in the past.And now that the system has changed and takes a long time, people want to know what's going on.

It's not like we can point to a lot of fraud and there's been a lot of investigations of the process.Are you worried that saying, oh, this is obviously rigged because Pratt had so many votes early on.He had votes early on because they count the day of voters first.And the mail -in vote is huge and is disproportionately Democrat.We shouldn't be surprised by this.

No, I think what it does is it opens the door to potential fraud, which then gets people talking about it and accusations of fraud.So it's essentially saying, I don't think there's widespread fraud.I think there's the potential of it because we can't, you know, we do ballot harvesting.We do all the mail -in stuff.We do all this stuff.that fraudsters could exploit.

So that's why people are asking questions.Is there proof it's been exploited on a scale that would change the results materially?No, it has not.But but that's not what the Justice Department says.They say there's something going on in California and they say it's worth investigating.And that's why there is now a federal investigation of this whole process.

That's not a theory.That's not a suspicion.That is a case that we filed and she has pled guilty to that.So that's a that's a conviction.So we have multiple cases in that vein open on election fraud.Now, the question that, you know, you ask many is, is it widespread?

How much is it?Is it enough to sway an election?Well, the answer is we don't know.No, we know you can't say no.You haven't done an investigation.

The purpose of the U .S.government is to serve the interests of the people.And if people have questions about something, There needs to be an investigation.It needs to be looked into.People need to know and understand that everything's fair and square because if people don't, people are going to have questions.

They're not going to trust their government.The whole system is going to break down.So you have to have an investigation whether or not.a certain person may or may not think that the investigation is even warranted.If people have questions about something, like the UFO thing, we keep investigating UFOs because people have questions.If the government says, no, we're not going to investigate UFOs ever again, what do you think that's going to do to people who say there's some conspiracy?

The conspiracies are going to go through the roof and people aren't going to get any answers.That's why a lot of this informationis getting released now with the whole UFO thing.You have to do something to tackle this stuff.You have to get ahead of it whether or not you even think it's real.But there's more, listen to this.

that is not a good system.When you can register to vote with a debit card, that's not a good system.When you don't clean your voter rolls, that is not a good system.When you legalize ballot harvesting, which is illegal in most states, with no chain of custody, not a good system.And then you ask us, why don't we have evidence of wide -scale fraud?Because...

The last part is inaccurate.

What's inaccurate?So nobody has a problem with a process or an outcome.If you can observe that process and and just verify simply that, hey, things here seem okay.Like you go to the bank, you give them your money, they put it in your account, they give you a receipt, and you can check in online banking and say, hey, there's a credit on my account.I mean, that's a verifiable process.You don't have to worry after that that the bank is then going to take money out of your account and just spend it on whatever they want because you'll be able to see right away if something weird like that happens.

So we like processes that are simple and that are verifiable.We don't like processes that are convoluted.that take a long time, that perhaps don't have the level of transparency that some people would want.And then he brings up a good point here.He says, look, the state is resisting some of this auditing that the federal government is entitled to do.Why are they resisting?

Well, that just creates more conspiracies when you do something like that, whether you think it's warranted or not.

And the state saying no is a bad look.That's what I said, a bad look.

We have not charged the state of California with wide -scale voter fraud.We're conducting an investigation.We have not brought a case, and I guarantee you when we do bring cases, we will have plenty of evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.That is how we work.That is how we speak.I have not provided any specifics on any case.

I've simply told you there is evidence of voter fraud.We are looking into it.And when we're ready to bring those cases, you'll see the evidence.You'll see the case.So he says there's evidence.

He says that's why the federal government is here.He says that the federal government is not here.I'm some sort of political witch hunt because somebody lost a mayoral election.They're saying that there is actual evidence, but because it's part of an investigation can't be released yet.But when the court case happens, then everybody will see, I guess.Now the only thing that doesn't really help with the conspiracies is what is that evidence?

Now everybody wants to know.We can look at recent videos.We can look at recent reports.We can observe how these systems work and come to our own conclusions.But until there's an actual investigation and there are actual charges and a judge pronounces or a jury pronounces somebody innocent or guilty, we don't have an answer here.But it sounds like we're going to very soon.

You'll see the evidence.You'll see the case.We'll make it in a court of law.We want to instill confidence in the elections, which is why we are seeking to audit the voter rolls.And that, to me, is the best way to alleviate most of people's suspicion.We have a system that breeds skepticism and distrust.

We should have a little transparency and confidence in our system.I'm all for the transparency.I'm all for it.

And I think that what we need to remember here is that when you have a system that does not breed confidence, everybody just kind of comes to their own conclusion.And since the government is either stonewalledor not giving answers, it just makes the whole thing worse.Why do we want to have a system like that?This isn't even about who won or lost the election.This is was this thing fair?

Because if it's not fair, your political party could win and then somebody else could cheat later and disenfranchise it.Like, we don't want to see any of that stuff.We don't want that stuff to happen.And I think it's good that people are looking into this, because Everybody here needs answers.What do you think's going on?I'll see you in the next video.