What’s Happening in Los Angeles Is an Exercise in Brute-Force Politics

 The vote factory strikes again.

Four years ago, Cuba-trained communist agitator, Karen Bass, beat real estate developer Rick Caruso in a 53-47 runoff, overcoming some $100 million in self-funded spending by the loser of the race. That was a fateful election in many ways, but it did establish that there were enough potential Republican votes to be had in Los Angeles that a candidate with money or a message could, at a minimum, make the runoff and potentially even win.

Those results are worth remembering now, four years later, when, despite running one of the most noteworthy campaigns in recent American history, Spencer Pratt has just been bounced out of the runoff in an effective three-way race thanks to a bizarre distribution of votes from mail-in ballots counted well after Election Night. (RELATED: SCOTUS Must Stop Mail-In Voting Madness)

Nobody can find an example from history in which a third-place candidate getting 20 percent of the Election Day in-person vote counted on Election Night, who had conceded the race as Nithya Raman did, suddenly jumps to 40 percent of the vote as mail-in ballots are counted. That’s because it’s never happened before, and it cannot happen in the wild. (RELATED: The Indefatigable California Vote Factory)

There are a number of theories as to how Raman, who lost in her city council district and the congressional district she’s in, could somehow have emerged as the Mail-In Ballot Queen. But the most obvious one comes from the fact that in California, they’re mailing out ballots to everyone on the voter rolls, which they’re actively refusing to clean, and in Los Angeles, there are tens of thousands of registered voters whose ballot access is provided by third parties.

Meaning, for example, there are homeless people in L.A. who get their ballots mailed to a facility run by an NGO, and the NGO “facilitates” their vote.

And those ballots will be counted so long as they’re postmarked on Election Day.

When on Election Day is a… good question. Because California will happily take weeks to count votes, a time period which has, multiple times in the past, resulted in stunning come-from-behind victories for Democrats. Like in several congressional races over the past few years.

And now Spencer Pratt has lost a seven-point lead over Raman to fall out of the runoff in Los Angeles.

Raman’s electoral strength seems to have come out of mail-in ballots from the downtown area of the city — where Skid Row happens to be. Pratt noted that her surge of 43,000 votes is an eerily similar number to the estimated 43,000 homeless living on the downtown streets.

That might be too cute to take seriously, but it’s obvious you don’t have such a massive turnaround from the 58 percent of the votes counted on Election Night producing a comfortable margin for a Bass-Pratt runoff, and then by the time 87 percent of the votes were in, on the strength of the mail-in vote, it’s suddenly Raman 3,000 votes up on Pratt.

Bill Essayli, the first assistant to the U.S. attorney in Los Angeles, is making it clear that the Justice Department is aware of the situation and looking into it.

But Essayli also notes that California has an intentionally broken election system, which is set up to normalize cheating…

Get into the subject of election integrity, and you will find that it’s a jungle. Many people active on the Right in this space will drag you into the topic of voting machines and the thicket that is Dominion and Smartmatic; that’s a trip inside the weeds, which gives most people a headache. (RELATED: The Spectacle Ep. 296: The 2020 Election Fraud Exposé Continues)

But this isn’t quite so complex.

California deliberately keeps dirty voter rolls, and it’s a state with a massive amount of outmigration. For most purposes, outmigration is a colossal problem; it creates difficulties with school funding, reapportionment, federal matching funds for all kinds of programs and systems, and so on.

But for keepers of dirty voter rolls and ballot harvesters, outmigration is mother’s milk.

All of these people who are moving out of California for places like Nevada, Arizona, Texas, Colorado, and Idaho will generally remain on the voter rolls that the state and local authorities do not keep clean. So when the state sends out a mail-in ballot to John Gone at some apartment complex in Los Angeles and there is some NGO that goes around to get those ballots, and there is no real effort made at verifying a signature on those ballots — California will, in fact, allow signers to simply make a mark and then have someone “witness” the ballot — it’s possible to harvest ballots and manufacture votes with impunity.

And how does anyone prove the fraud?

The proof isn’t granular. It isn’t in the fish in the ocean; it is the ocean.

Another way to put this is that a system is what it does.

When the Justice Department asks for states to submit their voter file for an audit to ensure that no illegal aliens or dead people are on the voter rolls, and California refuses to cooperate, it’s prima facie evidence that fraud is going on. When the state says it can’t count votes on Election Night but has to take a month to do so, when drawn-out vote counts are absolutely corrosive to perceived election integrity, there can be no presumption that this is a good-faith effort to get it right. (RELATED: Afflicted With TDS, Four Senators Kill Election Integrity)

When the state actively fights voter ID requirements and accepts things like gym memberships as proof of ID, that’s a sure tell that they want ineligible people to vote.

And when the third-place candidate somehow doubles her vote among mail-in votes, besting the first-place candidate and the second-place candidate, that is best explained by fraud.

California has nothing but hinky elections, which produce nincompoops and criminals as its leaders, and you’re supposed to believe that nothing untoward is happening.

They are micturating on your leg and demanding that you agree that it’s raining.

But you don’t have to.

What happened in Los Angeles was absolutely blatant vote fraud. It is a brute-force manipulation of election results, which is entirely on brand for an organization that is less a political party, as Michael Walsh used to say, than a criminal syndicate. Compare this with the wide-open welfare and social services fraud Democrats are openly defending in Minnesota, New York, and yes, California, and you will find very little difference either in style or substance. (RELATED: Some Obvious Truths From Minnesota)

They gave up on pretenses of honesty and goodwill years ago. They knew they weren’t going to allow Pratt to win that race, and they were also nervous that Pratt, in the runoff, would drive up Republican turnout in Los Angeles, which could benefit Steve Hilton, not to mention Pratt’s campaign was creating a real PR disaster for their political machine that five more months of hand grenades would make intolerably worse.

So they simply fixed it so that Pratt would go away.

And they don’t care what anybody thinks.

And this will go on until someone stops it.

Bill Essayli and his bosses have a lot of work to do.

https://spectator.org/whats-happening-in-los-angeles-is-an-exercise-in-brute-force-politics/

Scott Pelley’s Hysteria Is A Good Sign That The Legacy Media Continue To Die A Painful Death

 I never cared for this Clown because of his bias bullshit and now he says he isn't?

Times are changing. The media’s ‘normal course of business’ is quickly disappearing, along with Scott Pelley.

Scott Pelley knows his career as a prominent TV content creator has come to a relatively uneventful end, so he’s trying to make the most of it in the way people in his profession best know how, which is to gin up a bunch of hysteria with hopes of terrifying people. Sadly for him, though, it’s not really working and it’s mostly just sad to watch.

After his fabulous public crash-out last week, Pelley, now a former CBS 60 Minutes correspondent, saw fit to sit with The New York Times for an hour and talk about how important he is between bouts of crying. In an interview with the publication’s The Interview podcast, Pelley perfectly demonstrated why TV broadcast news is in rapid decline — the bottomless arrogance, the galactic sense of entitlement, and, most crucially, the detachment from any sense of reality experienced by people who don’t read scripts on TV for a living.

For anyone mercifully spared the recent melodrama at CBS, Pelley was fired last week after attempting to dress down his superior in front of colleagues and then having that encounter leaked to the press, likely by Pelley himself. (Whoever leaked it was sure to include that Pelley was given a round of applause by his coworkers, something he reiterated in his podcast interview.) Pelley, and presumably some of his peers, are very upset that CBS has hired new people who aren’t fire-breathing statists to lead its news division, including 60 Minutes.

As is always the case, leftists like Pelley don’t like being told that their anti-American tendencies, which include lying and manipulating the public via their media platforms, are destructive and intolerable, so he’s acting out. But while it’s embarrassing for him, it’s constructive for the rest of us. Let’s look at a few quotes from his podcast interview.

Pelley: “Newsrooms are sort of like the military or the police or the beautiful people at the [Fire Department of New York] down the street. It is a life-threatening job in many instances.” Relatedly, he said his firing and the trouble some of his colleagues went through “is like your spouse being murdered.”

If you didn’t know, Scott Pelley is sort of like a U.S. Marine parachuting into a war zone, confronting enemy fire. He’s important. So are all his friends who work(ed) at 60 Minutes.

Pelley: “We felt that she was making statements that she couldn’t back up and was coming into the news division with hardened preconceived notions that didn’t seem to be thought through.”

Here, Pelley is referring to Bari Weiss, the new head of CBS’s news division, having asked the 60 Minutes staff why a substantial portion of the public believes the program to be politically biased. It’s not a particularly challenging question, even if you disagree with the premise. But because Pelley and so many like him are never even exposed to the premise, he took offense (like a child who has just been told Santa isn’t real). Throughout the interview he repeatedly asserted that it was the new CBS News management who failed to critically evaluate their own capabilities, rather than himself. This is standard behavior for the people who have been working in the quickly dying news media all their professional lives.

Pelley: “My understanding from people directly involved in that interaction is that Bari Weiss was quite livid that Anderson Cooper was allowed to say those things and that she, Bari, was not consulted beforehand, which in our normal course of business would not have been done anyway.”

The “normal course of business” Pelley was referring to digs right to the root of the dying media’s problem. The “normal course of business” is quickly becoming unprofitable, and also audiences are finding that the people on TV proclaiming to tell the truth, people like Pelley, are lying. On top of that, Pelley and the rest so often insult and belittle others, including their employers, with impunity, and the rest of us who don’t work in that business wonder how they get away with it. They do so because there’s a dynamic unique to the news media business where insubordination is considered brave and commendable. Where that might get you fired elsewhere, it gets you more recognition and respect in the dying media business.

Times are changing. The “normal course of business” is quickly disappearing, along with Scott Pelley.

https://thefederalist.com/2026/06/09/scott-pelleys-hysteria-is-a-good-sign-that-the-legacy-media-continue-to-die-a-painful-death/

Kristen Welker’s Delusional Defense Of Brazen California Election Is Why Everyone Hates The Media

 I stopped watching CNN during Operation Desert Shield and the rest of the Garbage Media when they were having orgasms over aa failed Obamacare telling all the Idiots how good it it

Welker is what makes the Democrat Media "Garbage"

California’s own election rules raise skepticism by design.

Socialist Los Angeles City Councilwoman Nithya Raman appeared to concede defeat Tuesday night after it looked like Spencer Pratt would advance to the November runoff election against incumbent Mayor Karen Bass. But then votes kept pouring in days after the Tuesday election, and by Sunday evening, Raman had taken the lead over Pratt.

The 180-degree-turn has left many scratching their heads: How does a candidate who was down by roughly 40,000 votes suddenly jump to second place after she herself publicly signaled her path to victory had all but disappeared? (Raman currently leads Pratt by more than 20,000 votes, after post-election ballot dumps have gone overwhelmingly in her favor.)

For NBC’s Meet the Press host Kristen Welker, however, questions about such outcomes are apparently evidence of nothing more than public ignorance. During a Sunday interview, President Donald Trump said the 2020 election was “rigged” (and he’s right — but more on that later) and that the same rigging is happening in California.

“Where’s the evidence to that?” Welker asked, repeatedly claiming the days-long vote counting is just how California does elections. But in Welker’s eager dismissal she glossed over some glaring flaws in California’s electoral system that raise the concerns of any American capable of critical thinking.

As of Sunday, Raman had seen a swing of roughly 43,000 votes since election night. Pratt questioned the ballot dump on X: “43,000, huh? Where have I seen that number before…? Probably nothing.” Below that message, he included a screenshot from a March article stating there are roughly 43,000 homeless people in Los Angeles.

Regardless of whether the two numbers are related, California has a history of irregularities when it comes to homeless persons voting or registering to vote.

Notably, 64-year-old Brenda Lee Brown pleaded guilty in May to one felony count of paying a person to register to vote after she allegedly paid homeless people on Skid Row to “help get initiatives on the ballot,” the Los Angeles Times reported. According to her plea deal, Brown “would give people on Skid Row two to three dollars — or, sometimes, a cigarette or a phone cord — in exchange for their signature to help qualify a measure for the ballot,” the Times reported. Armstrong “would also register neighborhood residents to vote, sometimes using her former home address, according to court records.”

In 2020 two people were charged for allegedly submitting thousands of fraudulent voter registration applications on behalf of homeless persons in Los Angeles County, according to NBC 4 Los Angeles.

While none of that means it’s happened now in this race, it does prove that concerns about election administration and integrity shouldn’t be automatically dismissed — unless, of course, you’re Welker.

As a whole, California’s own election rules raise skepticism by design. The state allows all ballots postmarked by Election Day to be accepted up to seven days after the election, creating an election process in which counting can go on for days long after Americans believe an election is over. If a ballot is missing a postmark or if the postmark is disputed, officials can “just go by whatever date the voter wrote inside the envelope,” election expert Hans Von Spakovsky told Fox News.

California has also allegedly blocked federal prosecutors from accessing voter registration records that the Department of Justice said were necessary to audit the state’s voter rolls to ensure the state is complying with federal law, KTLA reported. Notably, California’s loose election laws permit individuals missing a driver’s license or Social Security number to register to vote using something as simple as a gym membership for identification, which does not allow the state to check for citizenship or residency.

Late arriving ballots, long counting times, and dramatic shifts in margins create curiosity, to say the least.

There may be reasonable explanations for how Raman — who has trailed Pratt in the polls and barely had name recognition in the campaign and underperformed in her own city council district — suddenly is No. 2 in the race. But Welker’s “that’s how they count the votes in California” argument is hardly compelling. Reasonable people can observe a candidate who was trailing by tens of thousands of votes suddenly see that deficit disappear and ask questions without becoming conspiracy theorists.

Welker’s dismissive attitude is the same attitude Welker had when Trump brought up how the 2020 election was “rigged.”

“Where’s the evidence to that?” Welker asked.

The evidence “to that” was in Trump v. Raffensperger, to give just one example. In that suit filed in Georgia, Trump alleged specific violations of state election law and the casting of ballots by ineligible voters, such as 66,247 underage voters, 2,423 persons not registered, more than 1,000 voters who illegally listed a P.O. Box address as their address, more than 8,000 voters who died before their votes were cast, amongst other irregularities. Notably, Georgia’s presidential race was decided by fewer than 12,000 votes.

But the merits of the case were never actually heard. As election integrity activists like Cleta Mitchell pointed out, “We never were able to present our evidence to the court, however, because the chief judge of Fulton County, Chris Brasher, failed to appoint a judge eligible to hear the election contest for a month.”

Another difficulty, as described in these pages by Bob Anderson, was that the counsel for the state “demanded in a Jan. 3 letter that all lawsuits against [Gov. Brian] Kemp, [Secretary of State Brad] Raffensperger, and the State Elections Board be dropped in order to ‘cooperatively share information.’”

“Trump’s counsel accepted the offer of dismissal to get information they had requested, but it came as the timeframe to use it ended on Jan. 6. The suit was withdrawn on Jan. 7,” Anderson wrote.

The 2020 election also saw Mark Zuckerberg pour hundreds of millions into turning out the vote in Democrat-heavy areas, brazen left-wing censorship, unlawful changes to election law, weakening of election procedures, and the proliferation of mail-in balloting, among things.

Given California’s extremely questionable election processes, documented cases of voter-registration fraud, and the fact that many 2020 election challenges never received full hearings on the merits despite having good cause, Americans — and Trump — don’t need to be lectured by Welker and other “journalists” about the questioning of those races and their outcomes.

If anything, Trump’s (and the public’s) skepticism about the California races is far more understandable and justified than Welker’s (and the media’s) insistence that every concern can be dismissed with a shrug because it’s just “how they count the votes in California” or because there’s not enough “evidence” to suit Welker.

https://thefederalist.com/2026/06/09/kristen-welkers-delusional-defense-of-brazen-california-election-is-why-everyone-hates-the-media/

SCOTUS Has The Chance To Deliver Decisive Blow To The EPA’s Unconstitutional Overreach

 Until the Court addresses the flawed and non-textual nondelegation doctrine, federal agencies will continue to make laws — and pick winners and losers.

The EPA under the Biden Administration crafted a cap-and-trade scheme to allocate market share in the multibillion-dollar hydrofluorocarbons industry — including to “new market participants” based on the promotion of “equity.” Now, one of the businesses the EPA rendered a market-share loser under the federal agency’s unconstitutional take-over of the hydrofluorocarbon industry seeks review by the Supreme Court. And that pending petition represents a sleeper case that could implode much of the administrative state if it makes it onto the high court’s docket next term.

Next Thursday, the Supreme Court will conference over the pending petition for review, called a petition for certiorari, in the case of RMS of Georgia, LLC, dba Choice Refrigerants v. EPA. The petitioner, known more widely as Choice Refrigerants, is a small business operating out of Georgia which invested in patented blends of refrigerants for air conditioning and other products in the early 2000s. At the time, the EPA encouraged the development of hydrofluorocarbons to replace the ozone-depleting refrigerants then on the market.

In December of 2020, Congress passed a statute called the AIM Act, short for the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020, which mandated a phasedown in the United States of hydrofluorocarbons using a cap-and-trade program. The AIM Act provided for a phased elimination of 85% of hydrofluorocarbons produced in, or imported to, the United States.

While Congress detailed in the AIM Act the cap for each phase of the plan to reduce hydrofluorocarbons, the statute provided no direction for the EPA to decide who should receive “allowances” under the law. With no guidance from Congress, the EPA invented its own standards for doling out allowances, with the EPA reserving millions of allowances for “new entrants.” The EPA’s final rule from October 5, 2021, also expressly provided multiple times that, in allocating market share, it could consider “equity.”

The EPA later issued a final rule in July of 2023 to cover allocation of hydrofluorocarbons from 2024 through 2028. That final rule continued to provide for allowances to “new market” entrants, prejudicing Choice Refrigerants and other businesses to the advantage of those deemed worthy by the Biden Administration.

When Choice Refrigerants challenged the EPA’s scheme, the EPA initially defended its allocation of market-share by claiming it “was free to issue the allowances in a reasonable manner, reasonably explained,” based on Chevron deference. However, the Supreme Court would later overrule the Chevron doctrine — a doctrine which required courts to defer to an agency’s interpretation of a statute so long as it was reasonable. 

Nonetheless, the lower court rubberstamped the EPA’s cap-and-trade program, holding Congress could leave it up to the EPA to decide how to allocate market share. The ramification of this reasoning is truly boundless, as Choice Refrigerants explained in its petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court: The lower court’s decision “leaves EPA free to choose which companies may participate in a multibillion-dollar industry, and which may not, based entirely on the agency’s policy preferences, whether grounded in preserving orderly markets, advancing social justice, achieving environmental ends, or bare revenue raising.”

In fact, the EPA had previously proposed handing out allowance by “prioritizing applications for new market entry from ‘minority- and woman-owned small businesses’ that may have faced ‘challenges entering the HFC import market due to systemic racism, market-access barriers, or other challenges, . . . .’” While the final rule only spoke of the EPA considering “equity, human dignity, fairness, and distributional considerations” in establishing market share, the government’s reasoning — if upheld — would allow federal agencies to decide winners and losers based on race or sex.

The EPA’s entire cap-and-trade scheme is antithetical to America’s free market system, but there is an even more fundamental flaw, which serves as the basis for Choice Refrigerants’ request that the Supreme Court hear its appeal. As noted above, Congress, in passing the AIM Act, said nothing to the EPA concerning who should receive allowances to continue to produce or import hydrofluorocarbons. The lower court just invented its own standard — a clear violation of our Constitution’s foundational principle that lawmaking authority is vested in the legislative branch, not the unelected bureaucrats that run the EPA and the scores of other federal agencies.

The Supreme Court has branded this concept “the nondelegation doctrine,” although it stems from Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution which provides: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, . . . .” However, while Article I, Section 1 vests “all legislative Powers” in Congress, the Supreme Court currently acquiesces in the delegation of power to agencies so long as the statute establishes an “intelligible principle” to direct the bureaucrat’s exercise of power.

The AIM Act contains no such “intelligible principle,” though, when it comes to divining who is entitled to receive hydrofluorocarbon allowances. Yet, the lower court upheld the EPA’s regulation against Choice Refrigerants’ nondelegation doctrine challenge.

Not only did the lower court err, as Choice Refrigerants argued in its petition for certiorari, but “[m]ultiple Justices have written . . . to underscore the need for ‘further consideration’ of the rules governing delegations of power to decide important questions of national policy.” And in this regard, the Chief Justice, along with Justices Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas, believe the Supreme Court should abandon the “intelligible principle” and nondelegation doctrine and return to “the Constitution’s original meaning and historic practice.”

Yet the Supreme Court has, to date, been reticent to reinvigorate the nondelegation doctrine. Choice Refrigerants’ petition, however, presents the perfect opportunity for the high court to return to first principles and make clear that Congress cannot delegate away its power to make the law. Doing so would also solve the teeth-gnashing of late over President Trump’s exercise of control over executive branch agencies, for if the agencies lack the authority to make law, Trump cannot use his Article II power to commandeer the country. When it conferences on June 18, 2026 over Choice Refrigerants’ petition, the Supreme Court will likely have those recent legal battles in mind.

Over the last several years, the current Supreme Court has made great strides in restraining the administrative state by returning to the Constitution’s design of separation of powers. But until the Court addresses the flawed and non-textual nondelegation doctrine, federal agencies will continue to make laws — and pick winners and losers.

Disclosure: The New Civil Liberties Alliance represents Choice Refrigerants. Ms. Cleveland is Of Counsel at NCLA but is not an attorney of record on the case.

https://thefederalist.com/2026/06/09/scotus-has-the-chance-to-deliver-decisive-blow-to-the-epas-unconstitutional-overreach/

The stench of Skid Row wafts through Los Angeles's increasingly suspicious vote count

 Well, they did it.

A slew of late-harvested Skid Row votes, all coming in nearly a week after the mayoral election, has pushed DSA member Nithya Raman, a former homeless NGO satrap, above Palisades fire victim Spencer Pratt in Los Angeles's top-two primary. She had tearfully conceded the race on the day after the election.

So assuming the other 300,000 ballots (no one knows for sure the final total) are counted the same way, then come November, Los Angeles can choose between Karen Bass, the mayor who let two large city neighborhoods burn and still won't allow rebuilding, or Raman, the champion of the bums.

The Skid Row revelations are worth looking at because there have already been some very skeevy revelations about voter fraud in those quarters, first exposed on film in Los Angeles by investigative journalist James O'Keefe:

And when lawmen looked into it, they hit paydirt.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Public Affairs:

Brenda Lee Brown Armstrong, of Marina del Rey, California, 64, also known as “Anika,” is charged with one felony count of paying another person to register to vote, a federal charge that carries a maximum penalty of five years in federal prison.

Armstrong has agreed to plead guilty to the charge and is scheduled to make her initial appearance this morning in U.S. District Court in Santa Ana. She is expected to plead guilty in the coming weeks.

According to her plea agreement, for approximately 20 years, Armstrong periodically worked as a “petition circulator.” In that role, she was paid by individuals and entities – known as “coordinators” – to collect voter signatures on official petitions that qualify initiatives, referendums, and recalls for California state ballots. Armstrong drove around the Los Angeles area to find registered voters to sign the petitions.

 After gathering enough signatures, Armstrong returned the petitions to her coordinators, who then paid her a set amount for each registered voter’s signature. The amount she was paid varied depending on the specific ballot initiative. Because her coordinators only paid for signatures attributable to registered voters, Armstrong endeavored to ensure the people who signed her petitions were registered voters.

Armstrong occasionally solicited petitioned signatures in Skid Row, an area of downtown Los Angeles notorious for its homelessness problem. Skid Row was a convenient place for Armstrong to collect signatures because of its high concentration of people in a relatively small area who were willing to sign petitions in exchange for payment. Armstrong regularly paid and offered to pay individuals cash, usually in amounts between $2 and $3, to induce them to sign her petitions

Many of Skid Row’s homeless population were not registered to vote. To ensure she maximized her pay from her coordinators, starting no later than 2025, Armstrong began offering payment to individuals not only to sign her petitions, but also to complete a voter registration form. Before going to Skid Row, Armstrong gathered a stack of voter registration forms from the Los Angeles County Registrar of Voters.

 It seems likely that she was part of a bigger plot, operating over 20 years, knowing how to bring in the ballots, enough to get herself a home in upper middle class Marina del Rey perhaps. What she is about to do time for is likely only a fraction of what she did and the tip of the iceberg of what she knows.

Los Angeles has a reported 43,000 homeless individuals who are nearly all drug addicts, many of whom were bused in by other states shipping them out. Free drugs, free syringes, free needles are known to have been distributed by city-financed NGOs among them.

O'Keefe exposed NGO workers handing out drugs for ballot signatures and voter registrations, too.

Lawmen hit paydirt there, too. A few days after Brown was busted, this NGO worker in Los Angeles, living in upper-middle-class Culver City, also was arrested, DOJ announced:

LOS ANGELES – A Culver City man who worked for a nonprofit organization that distributes syringes to homeless drug users in Los Angeles and elsewhere was arrested today on a federal criminal complaint charging him with possessing fentanyl when police pulled him over while he drove a BMW near MacArthur Park earlier this month.

Christopher Barret Johnson, 42, is charged with possession with intent to distribute fentanyl. 

Johnson once worked for People Assisting the Homeless (PATH), a nonprofit that offers services to homeless people including street outreach, interim and permanent housing. PATH also serves as a vendor distributing syringes, including in MacArthur Park, a sector of the city characterized by high rates of poverty with many of its residents and visitors being drug users.

So now we see this weird stuff, 43,000 homeless, and 43,000 late-arriving Skid Row ballots suddenly putting Raman over the top for the November election, shutting Spencer out.

And she wasn't even popular, let alone very well known to voters. Her deer-in-the-headlight performance on debate night signaled to many that she wasn't ready for prime time:

Observers have noted that while Democrats tend to vote by mail late, the strange phenomenon of only voting for Raman, who was grossly behind on election night, and not Bass, whose vote tally was, like Spencer's flat, suggested some abnormal activity -- after all, if Democrats like to vote late, why didn't they split their votes between Bass and Raman? Somehow, they only went for Raman until her numbers could put her above Spencer:

Another oddity is that Los Angeles has lost population as residents flee to other states -- but the vote tally, is higher:

This observer points out that the consistency of the balloting for Raman suggests that someone is using the bums' names and registrations, however skeevy those many be, and actually controlling how those ballots are filled out. Bums don't care about politics, after all, they are interested in their next drug.

So many indicators of a manipulated and fraudulent outcome.

It's worth noting that Los Angeles has been seeing these oddities for a long time:

The New York Post found another example, too.

What it indicates is that homeless NGOs have at least as much power as the SEIU to swing elections, using their 'clients' as fodder for vote harvests. That would make bums, and the people who control the bums through their NGOs, the most powerful constituency in Los Angeles, the one that can swing elections. That is as disgusting a picture as any seen in election-fraud filled Venezuela or any socialist hellhole with phony votes. California's Gov. Gavin Newsom is now resisting any effort to audit the voter rolls, which have been filled with clearly fake voters.

Obviously, he's got something at stake here in this sorry state of affairs, where he and his party benefit. Just don't call it 'democracy.'

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2026/06/the_stench_of_skid_row_wafts_through_los_angeles_s_increasingly_suspicious_vote_count.html

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/06/spencer-pratt-calls-glaring-coincidence-nithya-ramans-43000/

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/06/just-trump-goes-rigged-california-election-not-possible/