- 6 hours ago
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:04Thank you all for being here. I'm Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty. Before the August 11th
00:11primary election, this office was very clear that reports of unlawful activity related to the
00:17election would be investigated and charged if appropriate. The primary election went smoothly
00:24and the systems we rely on for safe, free, and fair voting functioned well. One way to register to
00:32vote on election day in Minnesota is to have a registered voter from your precinct go with you
00:38to the polling place to vouch that you live in the precinct by signing an oath confirming your
00:44address. Vouching is commonly used in senior living facilities by residents who have not updated their
00:52driver's license to reflect their current address. In the 2024 general election, less than 0.6 of
01:02votes were cast using the vouching process. That's 0.6. On the day of the primary election, this August
01:1111th, a group of people were attempting to cast doubt on the state's vouching system by posting videos of
01:18themselves on social media. We were alerted to this conduct by the Minnesota Secretary of State's
01:25office. This conduct has been the subject of investigation and review. That review is now
01:32complete. Today we are charging two individuals, James O'Keefe and Cameron Higbee, with felony counts of
01:41unlawful voting and identity theft. Free and fair elections are the bedrock of democracy and their
01:49protection is one of our highest priorities. Mr. O'Keefe and Mr. Higbee entered polling places in
01:57multiple instances, identified themselves using names of registered voters in those precincts without
02:04those voters' knowledge or permission. Both men stopped short of signing the oath we all signed before
02:10receiving our ballot. But Minnesota law states clearly that no individual shall intentionally
02:17misrepresent their identity in applying for a ballot. Having entered polling places without
02:23legitimate purposes and intentionally misrepresenting their identity to election judges in applying for
02:30a ballot, the charges filed today are appropriate to address the conduct of Mr. O'Keefe and Mr. Higbee.
02:36I want to reiterate our commitment to safe, free, and fair elections. Our office has had regular
02:44meetings with Hennepin County election staff in preparation for both the primary and the general
02:50election this year. The system for identifying misconduct and responding to it functioned well
02:56during the primary, is already up and running during early voting, and will be ready on election day
03:02to respond to any additional issues. I also want to thank our election judges who witnessed the unlawful
03:10conduct, reported it, and cooperated with the investigation. Your work has helped protect our
03:17elections, and we will have your back during the voting period and on election day. To the citizens of
03:24Hennepin County, I encourage you to use your voice. Make a plan and vote. Take part in this election.
03:33And know that we are prepared to hold anyone accountable who engages in unlawful activity
03:38related to our elections accountable in a Hennepin County courtroom. Thank you. Questions? Luke?
03:46Are these guys in jail? And if not, what's the plan for taking care of that?
03:49Uh, question is, are these guys in jail? No, they are not. We have issued this as a summons,
03:54uh, which is appropriate under the circumstances. So, the process is, uh, the clerk's office will
04:01send them copies of the complaint with a date to appear here in Minnesota for their first appearance.
04:07Do we know that the two men acted alone, or do you believe others were involved in this scheme or
04:14a similar scheme?
04:15Uh, the question was, did they act alone or were others involved? Um, I don't speculate on that.
04:21We just looked at what their behavior was, uh, what the witness statement said, looked at appropriate
04:26charges, and we're going ahead with these charges against them.
04:30How many of you, Mary, without their own videos that are posted publicly, could you charge this case?
04:36Did you have enough evidence otherwise? Yes. Question is, without their public videos,
04:40could we have charged this case? The answer is yes. The election judges noted,
04:44in all of these different precincts, the election judges noted this, um, strange behavior. I think
04:50many of them refer to it. Uh, police did investigate by interviewing them. Uh, we know what they said.
04:58Uh, we know that they gave the names of registered voters, uh, without their permission. So yes,
05:05we would have been able to go forward without their video. And what would any sort of investigative
05:09journalism exposing vulnerabilities, uh, defense work, uh, for them? Is there a rationale to that?
05:18Yeah. The, the question is, I think what you're getting at is, and can an investigative journalist
05:24who's trying to seek out any vulnerabilities in our system do something like this? And I think that's
05:30a really important question. If you identify as a journalist, there is no such thing as undercover
05:36investigation in the polling place. You have to identify yourself as a journalist in the polling
05:42place, which they did not do. And is there any indication where they picked up the identities?
05:47Did the, the, the, the victims here understand, like, no, or you just have no idea where they-
05:53Yeah. So the question, the question is, uh, where did they get the identities of registered voters?
05:58We don't know that, but we can tell you that, um, the registered voters, uh, were interviewed,
06:06the ones, some were deceased, um, but others were alive and did not have any idea how these people
06:12got their information and did certainly did not consent, uh, to them using their identity.
06:18We have an election coming up next week.
06:20Yes.
06:20Is this meant to send a message to folks who might interfere with election processes?
06:25Yeah. The question is about, we have an election obviously coming up next week. I think it's our
06:29responsibility actually to make sure that people know what is allowed and what is not allowed in
06:34the polling place. And so this is not meant to send a message. It's meant, um, for these particular
06:39people to understand that what they did was unlawful. And I would say, in addition to that, um, don't,
06:46you know, if you don't know what's lawful, uh, or unlawful, please don't do that in a polling place.
06:51We want to have fair, free, and safe elections. And there are very strict rules about who can be
06:58in the polling place, how far away you have to be in the polling place. Look at the Secretary
07:02of State's website to see what's allowed and what isn't allowed.
07:06The federal government.
07:07What?
07:07Could you speak to, um, I know you said the Secretary of State, uh, alerted your office to this.
07:12Was there any reports to police or the Sheriff's office? Can you speak to the process?
07:16Yes. So the process, and yes, we heard about it through the Secretary of State. Also, uh,
07:23we as the County Attorney's Office represent our Elections Director and Elections Officer here.
07:28They had a very good process for having election judges document any unusual behavior. And so that
07:36was documented. The Minneapolis Police Department did do some investigation and one of our investigation,
07:40one of our investigators did additional investigation. Yes. Could you speak more to
07:46safeguards in the vouching process? Yes. So the question is about safeguards in the vouching process.
07:52One of the things that these people did, um, which wasn't present in the video,
07:57was you have to sign an oath, an affidavit, to be able to vouch for someone. And that affidavit says
08:04that
08:04you are a registered voter in that precinct so that you can vouch for this person who is also supposed
08:11to be a registered voter. They did not sign that oath. And that oath in and of itself,
08:16if you sign that oath and you do not live in that ward or you're vouching for somebody who does
08:22not,
08:22that's perjury. It's a felony. So there's a strong deterrent for people not to misuse the vouching
08:28process. And as I said, it's used very rarely in 0.6% of the votes. And I think over
08:343.2 million
08:35in the 2024 election. And it is primarily used, and this is understandable obviously, by senior
08:42citizens who are living in a place they just haven't updated their license because maybe
08:46they don't drive anymore. Uh, so it's, it's not used that well or that much, but there are safeguards
08:52here. If you sign that oath, you, and you are lying about it or misrepresenting it, it is a felony.
08:58In that vein, it's just this one. Oh, sorry. Follow-up question. Like, is there any
09:03tracking or checking? I understand like the preventive. Yes. Yes, there it is.
09:09There is tracking after the fact to see that, um, that person is a registered voter. Yes, sir.
09:15How many of the victims were deceased? And then did this have any impact on their voting
09:20when they show up to cast their ballot? So question is how many victims were deceased?
09:26I can't remember off the top of my head. We can get that information to you.
09:30I will tell you in the interview, I, if I recall, one of the voters whose name was used actually
09:35did
09:35vote. Uh, so he was shocked, uh, that somebody had used his name in an attempt, uh, to vouch. And
09:43remember here, although they used these names, which were not their own, they misrepresented their
09:48identity to the judges. They didn't do the oath, um, because that would have been perjury. They
09:54stopped short of that. You, you talked about, um, that they did not sign the oath. Correct. Can you,
10:01does that give them a way to say that we didn't commit a crime then because we didn't take it
10:05all
10:05the way? Can you explain why you think it's still a crime because with them dropping it at a certain
10:09point? Yeah. The question is if, um, they didn't take it all the way, they stopped short of signing
10:15the oath. Uh, what are we charging them with essentially? So there's a difference between
10:19intent to vote and intent to apply for a ballot. The application of a voting, a ballot in and of
10:26itself
10:26is a multi-step process. They did begin to apply for a ballot. You cannot begin to apply,
10:32apply for a ballot and misrepresent yourself. So those are two different questions, whether they
10:37actually intended to vote or whether they intended to start the process of applying for a ballot.
10:43I can't anticipate what their defense is. I'm sure we'll hear from them. Did you have a question?
10:48I was just going to ask the federal government's already thoroughly charged. I think it's nine people
10:51for, you know, voter fraud. They said they're looking for more. Did they have any, you know,
10:56assistance with this or do you feel like they were trying to go for these guys as well? I'm just
11:00curious
11:01where you've got the feds, you know, going for the same thing that you guys are going for. Um,
11:04kind of those are working in parallel in tandem or not. Yeah, the question is about the federal
11:08government. I'm unaware that they opened an investigation into these specific cases.
11:13Mary, in this kind of charge, could these guys go to prison if convicted at all?
11:17Uh, question is about the sentence on these cases. Um, I'm, my guess is that they're presumptive
11:23probation under the Minnesota sentencing guidelines. So no, they wouldn't be going to prison.
11:28Um, they could do some local jail time, but, but that's not, it is a, it's a low level offense
11:36in terms of Minnesota felonies. We take it seriously because you just cannot come into a
11:41polling place and misrepresent yourself using some other voters identity.
11:46Yesterday, the press conference got canceled. Was it, does that reflect some problems in getting
11:51a charge with Minneapolis police not fully on board with the idea?
11:55Mary, you know, the process of getting a complaint through the entire system,
12:00it's, as you all probably know, is very complex. Um, and sometimes it just doesn't make it, um,
12:06through all the steps it needs to go. And we did not want to keep you waiting. Um,
12:10so we just, uh, changed it to today.
12:13Let's do two more questions. Can you talk about the, uh, one of the things that I took
12:16when I watched these videos is that there's a performative aspect to it.
12:20Yes. There's obviously a mocking aspect to it.
12:22Yes. There's, um, uh, some of that feels, um, um, I don't know what the word is, derogatory,
12:29if you will. Um, did that play into the, any elements of this charge when it came to wanting to
12:36just
12:37hold them accountable for what they were trying to accomplish? I mean, obviously there's a, like
12:41we've talked about already, but it's a part of their profession that they are trying to,
12:47as they say, expose truths that others will not. Um, do you take them seriously? I guess it's also
12:54part of what I'm trying to understand about this charge, or do you think that they were truly trying
12:58to be performative, um, for an audience? Multiple questions in there. Sorry. Um, no,
13:05some of it was, um, as all of you know, they dressed up in what I would refer to as
13:10costumes.
13:11Uh, they said some things that were derogatory. Um, as you said, um, it could be perceived as being
13:16performative. Did that play any role in this? I will say no. It is not against the law to be
13:22performative. It is not against the law to be offensive. It's not against the law to say the
13:27things that they said if you're standing outside the polling place. So no, um, we can't let people's
13:32political bent or whatever they're here to do affect our decisions in deciding whether to issue
13:39felony charges. We take that very seriously. So none of that played a role. The fundamental issue here
13:46is you cannot go into a polling place and misidentify yourself and use other people's identity, um,
13:53and, and, and say that to our election judges as you apply for a ballot, whether or not you intend
13:59to vote.
14:00And part of what, maybe what Jeff was asking too, was does the intent matter? Like if their intent is
14:05to
14:05make a video that gets a million, multi-million views, not really to commit the crime or, you know,
14:12that you're accusing them of, does that matter in this? And then, and then I have a follow-up if
14:17you...
14:17Okay. So the question is, um, if their intent is simply to get a lot of social media, uh, attention,
14:27uh, no, that's not a crime. People can go on social media, they can say offensive, they can say whatever
14:32they want to. Um, and so that gets back to the crime that we have charged. I think it's pretty
14:39clear
14:40they did not intend to vote. Right? In fact, I think at some point they said, we stopped short.
14:46We, so that's not the question here. The question is, did they intend and did they start to apply
14:52for a ballot? And the question is, yes, you cannot walk into a polling place. Um, and think of, you
14:58know, when you all go to vote, you show up there, you're directed to somebody, you walk up to them,
15:04the person says, what is your name? Um, you cannot give somebody else's name and misrepresent yourself.
15:10And as you, uh, go through the process. So that's the piece of it that I think is important.
15:16Whether or not they intended to vote, um, is irrelevant. So if they say that they were exposed,
15:21that they, that they're, if they say that their videos expose weaknesses in this vouching system,
15:26do you think the videos did that? And if not, can you say why not? I don't, the, the question
15:32is,
15:32did their video, um, show any weaknesses in the voting system? I would say as edited,
15:38one might think so, but they kept out the part that they did not sign the oath.
15:46They didn't tell anybody that. In fact, when they were at the polling place, they made excuses to
15:51leave as soon as the election judge asked them to sign the oath. And so I, my recollection,
15:58I haven't seen all the videos, but they did not include that because I think it's an important
16:02piece of this. And I think this is important for Minnesotans to understand too, um, to vouch for
16:08somebody else, you have to sign an oath that you are a registered voter in that ward or in Minnesota,
16:16in that ward, living in that ward. And if you sign that and you're not, it is a felony. It
16:22is a felony.
16:23And that in my recollection was not something they ever put in the video. I think they just put in
16:29their videos, Hey, look how easy it is to vouch. We can just go in and say our name is
16:34something or
16:35another. And I think, I think that's, I mean, really their intent doesn't matter. I don't know
16:39what their intent was, but I do think it's important for Minnesotans to understand that, that vouching,
16:45we've had vouching for 50 years in Minnesota. There are strong protections there because if you sign
16:51that oath, you were subject to perjury and a felony conviction. So I think voters should take away that
16:58the system worked exactly the way it should have in the primary election because the election judges
17:03said, okay, we understand you're telling us you're here to vote or here to vouch for somebody. Here's a
17:09part of the process. Please sign the oath. And then they found reasons to go away.
17:13Can they cooperate? And you're often been in contact with them. Obviously they're both out of state.
17:18Right. Have police or your office been in contact? Do you feel like they're going to come,
17:21you know, play out? Yeah. So the question is, have we spoken to them? We have not.
17:28As in any case, our expectation is that somebody will get a lawyer and then we can't talk to them.
17:35Uh, they will have a court date. They'll be notified of the court date and then they need to come
17:40here.
17:40If they don't come here, uh, there will be a warrant for their arrest.
17:50Yeah. The question is about, is there any ambiguity in the applying part of the statute?
18:00Um, it's a multi-step process. They did begin to apply. I mean, that's clear. When you walk in
18:09and you say to the election judge, I am so-and-so and you are not that person and I
18:15am here to vouch,
18:17that is part of the application process. So you don't expect that to be used as like some defense
18:21on their part? I can't anticipate any of their defenses. Whatever they are,
18:26we'll address them at that time. Thank you so much.