Trump Campaign Caught Videotaping Voters At Philadelphia Ballot Drop Boxes
Category: News & Politics
Via: tessylo • 4 years ago • 69 commentsBy: Ryan Grenoble, National Reporter, HuffPost
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Trump Campaign Caught Videotaping Voters At Philadelphia Ballot Drop Boxes
The Trump campaign has been videotaping voters as they deposit ballots in drop boxes in Philadelphia ― a practice that the campaign claims is to document ballot fraud but that the Pennsylvania attorney general warns could amount to illegal voter intimidation.
Linda A. Kerns, a lawyer representing the Trump campaign, complained to city election officials last week after she said campaign representatives took video showing voters dropping more than one ballot into the boxes. Kerns said such behavior is a “blatant violation” of election law. A copy of Kerns’ letter was reviewed by The New York Times.
Under Pennsylvania law, voters are only allowed to deposit their own mail-in or absentee ballot in a drop box, though exceptions exist for voters with disabilities.
Philadelphia city attorney Benjamin Field emphasized that exemption in a response to Kerns Monday.
“Third party delivery is permitted in certain circumstances,” Field wrote. “The Board cannot agree with your conclusion on the basis of the information you provided. Nor can the Board, in exercising its duties, assume that an individual is violating the Election Code when that person can act as an agent for a voter who required assistance.”
Pennsylvania expanded mail-in voting in October, allowing all voters the choice to vote by mail. City and county election authorities have opened drop boxes in recent days, allowing voters to deposit their mail-in ballots without relying on the Postal Service.
A petition that would have allowed third parties to deliver mail-in ballots to drop boxes was denied late last month, potentially causing some confusion.
State Attorney General Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, told HuffPost in an email that this is actually the second time the Trump campaign has claimed voters are depositing multiple ballots. The campaign’s earlier lawsuit seeking to ban drop boxes cited similar photos, Shapiro said, and was dismissed.
The bigger issue may be the Trump campaign’s surveillance of drop box locations, which Shapiro said may very well be illegal.
“Pennsylvania law permits poll watchers to carry out very discrete and specific duties — videotaping voters at drop boxes is not one of them,” Shapiro said.
“Our entire system of voting is built on your ballot being private and your choice to vote being a personal one. Depending on the circumstance, the act of photographing or recording a voter casting a ballot could be voter intimidation — which is illegal.”
Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner told The Associated Press that his office is committed to investigating “any and all” allegations of voter intimidation and harassment.
So far this election cycle, 294 pandemic-related lawsuits have been filed in 45 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico.
How else can this 'president' win without lying cheating stealing suppressing intimidating votes?
The law is the same in Texas. I could not hand in my bride's sealed ballot envelopes and she could not hand in mine.
Florida Deputies to Add Security After Armed Men Appear at Polling Site
Law enforcement officials in St. Petersburg, Florida, said Thursday that they would station deputies at five early voting sites as a precaution, the day after two armed men dressed as security guards were seen at a campaign tent outside a polling station.
The men told a law enforcement official that they had been hired by the Trump campaign to provide security, said Deputy Chuck Skipper of the Pinellas County sheriff’s office. But the county sheriff, Bob Gualtieri, said that he had “absolutely no confirmation” that the men were hired by the campaign. The men said they were guards for a Florida-based security company, Gualtieri said.
Your posts above have yet to prove that anything illegal was done.
Whether or not it's illegal, it's outright INTIMIDATION, encouraged by Trump telling his "army' of Proud Bois, and other white supremacist groups to go to the polls and watch out for "fraud". Never before has it been considered such a necessity. I have never seen such dirty tricks used in an election in Canada or the USA in my lifetime - such acts of suppression. But then after all, it was at the behest of Mr. "Law and Order". LOL "Law and Order" from the man and his administration that steals musicians' music to play at their rallies and events (and are being sued for doing so), that trashes international rules and protocols to which they agreed in order to break into a foreign consulate to unsuccessfully search for evidence of espionage they they never had in the first place, that totally contravenes the Hatch Act, holding election events on the White House lawn and Pompeo providing a message from Israel during the Republican Nominating Convention, totally ignoring the first debate rules AGREED TO by the Republican campaign debate committee - yeah, THAT Mr. "Law and Order".
What IS IT with Trump supporters? I suppose it's true that he gets more support from Americans that are less educated than those who are more highly educated, but surely the Trump supporters on NT have in most cases at least more than a high school education. I at first thought Trump was okay when he fulfilled his promise to move the Embassy to Jerusalem, a promise made but NEVER followed through by how many others that preceded him. But then because of what he did and said after that, at least I had the brains and common sense to change my mind about him. I can't believe how many supposedly intelligent members of NT are incapable of doing that.
U n me both./
And I can't believe how many people think that who Trump is as a person think that's the only relevant issue concerning who to vote for. I also can't believe how many people think alluding to a person's education or intelligence is a winning tactic.
Why are people making it harder to vote. Some people with disabilities have a hard time getting in and out of a vehicle. People with the virus should probably not get out of their vehicle.
Who in the world actually gives a shit if a husband and wife drop off both of their ballots at the same time and only one of them gets out of the car. Ridiculous.
Like Alabama putting a ban on curbside voting. Who gives a crap. I would rather someone that is sick not have to go inside and infect others.
My state allows curbside voting.
Imo all of these mishmash different rules and laws in different states should be outlawed. There should be universal laws on the books.
I do agree that there should be a national standard for voting
The issue with that is that those "universal laws" would end up being the lowest common denominator. As an example, curbside voting is specifically prohibited in Indiana. So I'm all for setting MINIMUM allowances on voting laws but not MAXIMUM allowances.
I am trying to understand what you mean. I am thinking along the lines of a national standard set.
Once the standard is set there would be no leeway of states doing different things.
That would mean that the 50 states would have to 'compromise'. I could imagine a scenario where that compromise could include not allowing states to have mail in only voting. As I stated, there are states that have very inclusive voting standards while others exclude as many as possible. Some states accept student IDs while others do not but they do accept concealed carry permits as a form of ID. Some have drop boxes all over districts, others have only ONE place to drop off an ballot.
If I lived in a place that had open and inclusive voting standards I sure as hell wouldn't want to have to tighten those standards to compromise with more 'conservative' states.
Ah. So you mean trying to come to a national consensus, which could include more restrictive practices.
Yes, I think it would drag more inclusive states to the right since the conservative states are highly invested in being restrictive.
Probably because could you see Texas relaxing their restrictive voting procedures?
Yeah, I understand what you are saying. Some would fight tooth and nail to include restrictive measures.
Some are just completely ridiculous, like having to have a notary.
I just never get the trying to make it harder to vote. Making restrictions.
Take Florida for example. They voted on giving back voting rights to ex felons and what does the state government do? And an addendum that all fines and any money owed must be paid off first, trying to take the right away again...Unreal.
We should be making it easier and more accessible and more inclusive.
I still think election day should be a national holiday. Give everyone the day off and time to get to the polls.
There are people in positions that do not get holidays. Nurses, policemen, firemen... There are a lot of occupations where you do not get regular holidays. I believe a better approach is to have voting over a three day period, Friday - Sunday. I think that would do a much better job of allowing for everybody to have the opportunity to vote.
Not bad Snuffy....
Yeah, there is always people working on holidays. Even convenience store workers.
I wouldn't mind the three day period. Kinda like an extended weekend to vote.
The school system my wife works for has a "teacher work day" scheduled for election day to not only provide polling places but also so the teachers can, if they please, go vote.
Yep, some businesses like schools can plan for election days (especially if the school is being also used as a voting station) and allow staff to take time off or are given the day off to do what they need to do to vote. My employer provides for time for us to go vote without taking any personal time away from work, we get to keep our regular pay. But not everybody is in a position todo that. I really to believe the better approach would be a three day election to allow for a greater ability for people to be able to go.
Cannot disagree with you at all.............
In Canada voters are permitted on voting days to take off 3 hours of their working hours, and be paid for them, to enable them to vote. NOBODY has an excuse for not voting. Personally I like Australia's system - voting is MANDATORY, and you pay a fine if you DON'T vote. Of course that wouldn't work in the USA where personal rights and freedoms outweigh the collective good.
The reason personal rights and freedoms outweigh what you call the collective good (whatever that is) here in the USA is that who gets to decide for everyone else what the collective good is? Taking China as an example, that would be the CCP. The Chinese people do not have rights as a part of their personhood, as we do here in America. They only have what they are allowed to have by the CCP. This is exemplified by what has and is happening in Hong Kong and further exemplified by the CCP's attitude toward Taiwan.
I never mentioned China but no surprise that anyone who supports Trump would look for every opportunity to adhere to what HE says and does, speaking of freedom. As for China, I've been here for more than 14 years and all I've ever seen are people who are happy with their lives, from my wealthy brother-in-law (and more and more people are becoming wealthy) to professionals to the many students I've taught and their parents, to fellow expats, to the farmers who sell their produce on the street. Nobody has ever confided in me negative feelings about the government. I have never seen a protest except on TV the ones in Hong Kong and throughout YOUR country and other countries around the world. No reason, no disruptions, even the poor are finding themselves lifted out of poverty by this "oppressive" government. So you continue to follow what Trump dictates and I'll continue to live a very happy and comfortable life here free to do whatever I want to do.
No, you did not. Do you need to in order for me to reference them?
Your attempt to link, and dismiss, my point to Trump in some way does not invalidate the point I have made. It is merely a deflection based on an appeal to emotion.
Um, yeah. Thanks for sharing your subjective observation. Now, how does this invalidate my point?
And? How does this address my point?
More simply subjective observation. Try this .
Perhaps it would help if you were not so selective in what you allow yourself to see. Try examining what is happening to the Uyghur population, Christians and other religious groups. The constant threat under which Taiwan exists. The persecution of anyone who dissents from the Party line. Most notably, the lack of freedom of speech and freedom of conscience.
I'm curious to know why you think this is about you? I'm also curious to know why you think deflecting the issue to Trump is an actual working tactic?
You spoke of "rights" and criticized the CCP. That begs for me to criticize Trump. Anyway, how do you like the number 83,000? No doubt it will be 100,000 soon. Good luck to you. Instead of "God bless America", perhaps we should be saying "God HELP America".
Feel free. I would simply appreciate knowing how criticizing Trump actually has any relevance to my statement. Specifically...
What does Trump have to do with that???
I can only assume your point must be something like, if only Americans would give up their freedoms and rights and submit to a dictatorship, we'd be better off during this pandemic and in other areas. Is that about right?
What's wrong with saying both?
[Deleted]
No. If so many Americans weren't so fucking selfish and would have accepted wearing masks and social distancing, you could have been on the way to containing the virus by now.
Possibly. Possibly not. I do not think the idea that if everyone would only wear masks, we'd contain the virus is necessarily true. I have read that something like 70% of people who contract the disease claim to wear masks in public all the time, yet they got infected anyway. Further, there's no realistic way to truly contain the virus, in my opinion. When you go to the store to buy food or whatever else you need, what use is it, really, to wear a mask when God alone knows how much virus contaminates your purchase? How many people have touched the item you've bought, from the vendor to the stocker to the cashier and even other shoppers? The mail from your mailbox? The handle on the gas pump or the door you just opened? The money in your wallet? Check this out.
And let's look at the mask itself. People do not wear them constantly. They keep them in a pocket or purse until needed. Combine that with the claim that we shouldn't touch our faces unless we've washed our hands. So, is our pockets sanitized? Nope. So, you may not have touched your face but you've touched the thing that covers your face, kept in an unsanitary place. To really be effective, you'd have to sanitize everything about yourself and all that you are wearing, constantly. Or, at the very least, you'd have to sanitize your mask every single time before wearing it.
If you recall, back in the beginning we saw story after story about people in the hospitals having to reuse their masks because they didn't have enough for normal protocol. Normal protocol would be getting a new mask after each new patient or after taking the old one off. This is because, once used, the mask can't be considered sanitary anymore. So, possibly what might be happening, at least to some degree, is that the masks we are using over and over again throughout the day could be soaking up virus because there's no practical way to keep them from being contaminated. We touch things, then we touch our masks when we put them on our face.
That seems like a stretch. We see photos and video every day of people in various stages of voting. Unless you're right up in someone's face, I don't see how that could be intimidating.
The vast majority of photographers who take pictures of voters have permission and get signed releases to use their likeness. Without it, they could be sued for publishing them.
I would think that it has more to do with state law, is the subject on private property or in a place where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. According to Pennsylvania privacy laws, if you and the subject are outdoors in a public space you can pretty much take pictures to your hearts content.
I don't think you have that correct. From the ACLU's website -
It also applies to people, including famous people, law enforcement and general people going about their business. Most street photographers like to ask permission, but there are those who don't. It doesn't even matter if I'm getting paid or not. Fair public use has been discussed many time. None of that precludes the people in question in the article aren't being douchebags.
For the purpose of elections, polling stations are 'public property' BUT voters have a right to privacy while voting.
Photographers that profit from published photos get permission and/or releases from private citizens.
I had a guy chase my mom and I down for a release when we walked past a movie shoot in NOLA. Guess they thought we were in the shot. It may have been a CYA thing.
Voters have a presumed right to privacy WHILE at the voting booth. They also have the right not to be intimidated while traveling to and from the polling place.
While voting, true. I'd argue that dropping an envelope off in a box is not exactly "voting". I'm sure there a piles of lawyers waiting around to argue that one though.
I'm sure that's what the State was alluding to.
There is so much legalese in the motion picture business that studio lawyers just automatically collect releases and use docs for literally everything and everyone to avoid even the hint of someone suing.
That's not really true. It's a popular misconception, though. Think about all the picture you see of people in some part of the voting process. You think the person who took this picture got signed releases from all these people? Unlikely.
Same with this photo.
And this one.
And this one.
The truth is you don't need releases to take pictures of people in public. It's kind of a basic tenet in the law that when people put themselves in a public space, they do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy (there are obvious exceptions - you can't take pictures up women's skirts or in bathrooms; you can't stand in a public street and point your camera inside of private property, etc.). But basically, if people are in public, they're fair game.
The main time when you would tend to want a release is if the picture is for purely commercial use. Obviously monitoring an election to make sure it is being conducted legally does not fall into that category.
So the one of people actually voting would qualify since it's an AP Photo by Tony Dejak.
The videotaping of folks dropping off their ballots is intimidation, plain and simple. Any spinning to the contrary is spinning, plain and simple.
Your photos have nothing to do with folks being videotaped while they're dropping off their ballots.
Your usual spinning. . .
No, it wouldn’t. That’s just the news.
The doesn’t make sense. It’s like saying “the ground is the sky, plain and simple.” You can declare it to be plain and simple, but that doesn’t make it so.
Of course it makes sense.
Your spinning does not.
What makes it intimidation? Is the camera in their face? Do they even know they’re being recorded? If so, do they know who is recording them? Is no one else shooting video of voters? (you know, like every TV news organization in the country)
You're kidding right? 'The news' is copyrighted. THAT'S why we need to post links to articles we quote.
You certainly can't be claiming that AP photos aren't purely for commercial use.
Hey, you're free to prove your claim. Just show us that the AP gets signed releases from all the people they take pictures of in public.
YOU proved my claim with this statement:
Spin, spin, spin . . .
No, those two things don't connect. Do you have evidence that AP is collecting signed releases or not?
Are you backtracking on your statement?
Nope. You just haven't established (other than your own opinion) that the news qualifies for that.
You also indicated that you think the AP needs to get signed releases from the people who appear in their photos. I have invited you to support that idea with evidence, but you have ignored those requests. So I will ask again.
Do you have any real evidence that the AP gets signed releases from the people who appear in their photos? Also, do you have any evidence that any major news agency gets signed releases from people who appear in their photos? Particularly people at any particular stage of voting?
I'm pretty sure the "commercial use" he speaks of concerns getting a video or photo of someone and, say, using it in a commercial to sell something. I don't think filming someone dropping off a ballot in a drop box for the purpose of ensuring a fair election or looking for fraud constitutes commercial use.
Associated Press is a commercial enterprise, is it not?
Um, if I have to explain the difference between the AP doing it's business and somebody trying to sell beer, you aren't likely to get it anyway, so I won't bother.
We are talking about a specific photo taken by an AP photographer. I'd ask you to try to keep up but you aren't likely to get it anyway, so I won't bother.
Find those signed releases yet?
Still trying to deflect from your own statement I see.
Nope. I'll say it again. You haven't established that the AP qualifies under that definition. It's just your claim.
Find those releases from the AP yet? How about from any major news organization? Are you ever going to support the things you claim?
The videotaping of these people dropping off their ballots is Intimidation plain and simple. All the spinning to the contrary is just that, spinning.
I fail to see how taking pictures and videotaping people dropping off ballots is intimidation unless the voter doesn't want anyone to know they voted. Their ballot is secret, no one knows who they're voting for.
So people are standing there filming the people who come to drop off their ballots. Now, that has never happened before, and there has never been a reason for it to be done, except perhaps by accredited media persons now and then for publication of a news story. Since agents are allowed to drop other's ballots, how would the "watchers" know if it is legal or not? This from the article: “Third party delivery is permitted in certain circumstances,” I'll bet you have no valid explanation that holds water. So IMO it's nothing other than intimidation.
So all the photos and videos of people voting taken by pretty much all news sources, INCLUDING left wing sources is intimidation?
Maybe you should seed a story whining about that...
Simply insisting that it is so doesn't mean it actually is so. Here, watch.
The videotaping of these people dropping off their ballots is NOT Intimidation plain and simple. All the spinning to the contrary is just that, spinning.
See?
I got this today and while it did not say who/whom I voted for, it was accurate from 2012 on. So while some of you folks are unable to distinguish between a polling place and a ballot collection place and ignoring all the security cameras on every street corner with facial recognition... to make some political point, you are already being watched and it will soon be known if you voted or not.
BTW... it did irritate me to receive this letter. I laughed when I found out this was some from left leaning outfit and laughed again when I ran across this article complaining about the righties. You are all the same! lol!
Laugh away. Who cares what you think? I certainly don't Mr. Both sides equally bad bullshit.
We are not all the same BC. Another both sides are equally bad bullshit . . . .
If all were the same we would only have one political party.