- 13 minutes 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
00:32to vote 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
02:11receiving 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?
03:45Are these guys in jail? And if not, what's the plan for taking care of that? The question is,
03:51are these guys in jail? No, they are not. We have issued this as a summons, which is appropriate
03:56under the circumstances. So the process is the clerk's office will send them copies of the complaint
04:03with a date to appear here in Minnesota for their first appearance.
04:15The question was, did they act alone or were others involved? I don't speculate on that. We just looked
04:22at what their behavior was, what the witness statement said, looked at appropriate charges,
04:27and we're going ahead with these charges against them.
04:37The question is, without their public videos, could we have charged this case? The answer is yes.
04:42The election judges noted, in all of these different precincts, the election judges noted this
04:48strange behavior. I think many of them refer to it. Police did investigate by interviewing them.
04:55We know what they said. We know that they gave the names of registered voters without their permission.
05:05So yes, we would have been able to go forward without their video.
05:07And would any sort of investigative journalism, exposing vulnerabilities, defense work for them?
05:16Is there a rationale to that type of defense?
05:19Yeah. The question is, I think what you're getting at is, can an investigative journalist,
05:24who's trying to seek out any vulnerabilities in our system, do something like this? And I think
05:30that's a 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 place,
05:42which they did not do.
05:44Are there any indication where they picked up the identities? Did the victims here
05:49others know, or you just have no idea where they came from?
05:53Yeah. So the question is, where did they get the identities of registered voters? We don't know
05:59that, but we can tell you that the registered voters were interviewed. The ones, some were deceased,
06:08but others were alive and did not have any idea how these people got their information,
06:13and did certainly did not consent 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 for these particular
06:39people to understand that what they did was unlawful. And I would say, in addition to that,
06:46don't, you know, if you don't know what's lawful or unlawful, please don't do that in a polling place.
06:52We want to have fair, free and safe elections. And there are very strict rules about who can be in
06:58the polling place, how far away you have to be in the polling place. Look at the Secretary of State's
07:03website to see what's allowed and what isn't allowed.
07:07Could you speak to, I know you said the Secretary of State alerted your office to this. Was there
07:13any 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,
07:22we 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,
07:41one of our investigators did additional investigation.
07:44Yes. Could you speak more to the vouching process?
07:48Yes. So the question is about safeguards in the vouching process. One of the things that these people did,
07:55which wasn't present in the video, was you have to sign an oath, an affidavit, to be able to vouch
08:02for
08:03someone. And that affidavit says that you are a registered voter in that precinct so that you can
08:08vouch for this person who is also supposed to be a registered voter. They did not sign that oath. And
08:15that oath in and of itself, if you sign that oath and you do not live in that ward or
08:20you're vouching for
08:21somebody who does not, that's perjury. It's a felony. So there's a strong deterrent for people
08:27not to misuse the vouching process. And as I said, it's used very rarely in 0.6% of the
08:33votes and I
08:34think over 3.2 million in the 2024 election. And it is primarily used, and this is understandable,
08:40obviously, by senior citizens who are living in a place they just haven't updated their license because
08:45maybe they don't drive anymore. 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
09:04tracking or checking? I understand like the preventive. Yes. Yes, there is. There is tracking
09:10after the fact to see that that person is a registered voter. Yes, sir. How many of the victims
09:16were deceased? And then did this have any impact on their voting when they show up to cast their ballot?
09:23So question is, how many victims were deceased? I can't remember off the top of my head. We can get
09:29that information to you. I will tell you in the interview, if I recall, one of the voters whose
09:34name was used actually did vote. So he was shocked that somebody had used his name in an attempt to
09:42vouch. And remember here, although they used these names, which were not their own, they misrepresented
09:48their identity to the judges. They didn't do the oath because that would have been perjury. They stopped
09:55short of that. You talked about that they did not sign the oath. Correct. Can you, does that give them
10:02a way to say that we didn't commit a crime then because we didn't take it all the way? Can
10:05you
10:05explain why you think it's still a crime because with them dropping it at a certain point? Yeah,
10:10the question is, if they didn't take it all the way, they stopped short of signing the oath,
10:16what are we charging them with essentially? So there's a difference between intent to vote and
10:21intent to apply for a ballot. The application of a voting, a ballot in and of itself is a multi
10:27-step
10:27process. They did begin to apply for a ballot. You cannot begin to apply for a ballot and misrepresent
10:34yourself. So those are two different questions, whether they actually intended to vote or whether
10:39they intended to start the process of applying for a ballot. I can't anticipate what their defense
10:45is. I'm sure we'll hear from them. Did you have a question? I was just going to ask,
10:48the federal government's already thoroughly charged, I think it's nine people for, you know,
10:52voter fraud. They said they're looking for more. Did they have any, you know, assistance with this
10:57or do you feel like they were trying to go for these guys as well? I'm just curious where you've
11:01got the feds, you know, going for the same thing that you guys are going for, kind of if those
11:05are
11:05working in parallel or in tandem or not? Yeah, the question is about the federal government. I'm
11:09unaware that they opened an investigation into these specific cases. Mary, in this kind of charge,
11:14realistically, could these guys go to prison if convicted at all? The question is about the
11:19sentence on these cases. My guess is that they're presumptive probation under the Minnesota
11:24sentencing guidelines. So no, they wouldn't be going to prison. They could do some local jail time,
11:31but that's not, it is a, it's a low level offense in terms of Minnesota felonies. We take it seriously,
11:39because you just cannot come into a polling place and misrepresent yourself using some other
11:45voters identity. Yesterday, the press conference got canceled. Was it, does that reflect some problems
11:50in getting a charge with Minneapolis police not fully on board with the idea? You know,
11:56the process of getting a complaint through the entire system, it's, as you all probably know,
12:02is very complex. Um, and sometimes it just doesn't make it, um, through all the steps it needs to go.
12:08And we did not want to keep you waiting. Um, so we just changed it to today.
12:13Let's do two more questions. Can you talk about the, one of the things that I took when I watched
12:17these videos is that there's a performative aspect to it. Yes. There's obviously a mocking aspect to it.
12:22Yes. Um, uh, so that feels, um, um, I don't know what the word is, derogatory, if you will. Um,
12:31did that play into the, any elements of this charge when it came to wanting to just hold them
12:38accountable for what they were trying to accomplish? I mean, obviously there's a, like we've talked about
12:42already, there's a part of their profession that they are trying to, as they say, expose truths that
12:49others will not. Um, do you take them seriously? I guess it's also part of what I'm trying to
12:55understand about this charge, or do you think that they were truly trying to be performative,
12:59um, 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.
13:10Uh, 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
13:45issue here is you cannot go into a polling place and misidentify yourself and use other people's
13:51identity. Um, it, and, and say that to our election judges, as you apply for a ballot, whether or not
13:59you intend to vote, maybe what Jeff was asking too, was does the intent matter? Like if their intent
14:05is to make a video that gets a million multi-million views, not really to commit the crime or, you
14:12know,
14:12that you're accusing them of, does that matter in this? And then, and then I have a follow-up.
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 for
14:52a ballot? And the question is, yes, you cannot walk into a polling place. Um, and think of, you know,
14:58when 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,
15:25do you think the videos did that? And if not, can you say why not?
15:30I don't, the question is, did their video, um, show any weaknesses in the voting system?
15:36I would say as edited, one might think so, but they kept out the part that they did not sign
15:45the oath.
15:46They didn't tell anybody that. In fact, when they were at the polling place,
15:49they made excuses to leave as soon as the election judge asked them to sign the oath.
15:55And so I, my recollection, I haven't seen all the videos, but they did not include that
16:01because I think it's an important piece of this. And I think this is important for Minnesotans to
16:05understand too. Um, to vouch for somebody else, you have to sign an oath that you are a registered voter
16:14in that ward or in Minnesota, in that ward, living in that ward. And if you sign that and you're
16:20not,
16:20it is a felony. It is a felony. And that in my recollection was not something they ever put in
16:27the video. I think they just put in their videos, Hey, look how easy it is to vouch. We can
16:32just go in
16:33and say, our name is something or another. And I think, I think that's, I mean, really their intent
16:38doesn't matter. I don't know what their intent was, but I do think it's important for Minnesotans to
16:43understand that, that vouching we've had vouching for 50 years in Minnesota. There are strong
16:49protections there because if you sign that oath, you were subject to perjury and a felony conviction.
16:55So I think voters should take away that the system worked exactly the way it should have
17:01in the primary election because the election judges said, okay, we understand you're telling us
17:06you're here to vote or here to vouch for somebody. Here's a part of the process. Please sign the oath.
17:11And then they found reasons to go away.
17:23Yeah. So the question is, have we spoken to them? We have not, uh, I, as in any case, uh,
17:31our expectation
17:31is that somebody will get a lawyer and then we can't talk to them. Uh, they will have a court
17:37date.
17:37They'll be notified of the court date and then they need to come here.
17:41If they don't come here, uh, there will be a warrant for their arrest.
17:44Is there any legal ambiguity around the, you keep saying like they began to apply,
17:50but the law says that they, it's misrepresenting and applying for a ballot.
17:54So they didn't actually finish the application.
17:56Yeah. The question is about, is there any ambiguity in the applying part of the statute?
18:01Um, it's a multi-step process. They did begin to apply.
18:06I mean, that's clear when you walk in and you say to the election judge, I am so-and-so
18:13and you are not that
18:14person and I am here to vouch that is part of the application process.
18:22I can't anticipate any of their defenses, whatever they are, will address them at that time.
18:28Thank you so much.