More than 300 individuals listed on Nevada’s voter rolls confirmed they have moved and should not be on the state’s active voter lists, according to a new report.

The revelation was disclosed in a Friday article authored by Citizen Outreach Foundation (COF) President Chuck Muth, whose Pigpen Project has been spearheading efforts to remove potentially ineligible registrants from the Silver State’s voter registration lists. The group utilizes government data to identify these questionable registrations and works with local election officials to ensure accuracy within the voter roll system.

While often seeking guidance on its challenges from Democrat Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar, the COF has faced roadblocks erected by Nevada’s elections chief and his office. Throughout the past year, the secretary has issued memos to local clerks seemingly aimed at stymying the group’s efforts to ensure the state has clean voter rolls.

The situation came to a head on Aug. 27, when Aguilar’s office issued a directive effectively instructing local election officials to stop processing the COF’s affidavits. This prompted the group to file lawsuits last month that sought to force clerks and registrars to comply with their challenges.

While the suits were withdrawn due to technical issues, Muth told The Federalist earlier this week he intends to re-file them after the 2024 general election.

To further prove the validity of its efforts, Muth detailed in his Friday post how the COF “created [its] own ‘confirmation letter’ and mailed it to a test group that was pulled from

Wausau Mayor Doug Diny had just finished a city directors meeting when he walked into his office to find three law enforcement agents rooting through his possessions. Suffice to say, the mayor was “surprised.” 

But Diny said he knew what this raid was all about. As The Federalist first reported a week ago, Democrat Attorney General Josh Kaul has ratcheted up his nationally watched investigation into the mayor for removing an unsecured absentee ballot drop box from outside city hall. For Diny, it all feels “very political,” an investigation and a raid the Wall Street Journal editorial board has described as “out of proportion to Mr. Diny’s action.”

Diny told the lead state Department of Justice investigator, special agent Mary Van Schoyck, that if the raid squad wanted to talk to him they should first contact his attorney. She showed him a search warrant, signed off by an Eau Claire County judge, and told him to sit down and read it. 

“The whole time they were badgering me to turn my phone over,” Diny told me in a phone interview from his office Thursday evening. He did as he was told, he said but realized he then had no way to call his attorney. The contact was, of course, in his cellphone. 

“She [Van Schoyck] said, ‘Who is your attorney? I’ll Google it for you,’ Diny said. “That part pissed me off. I said, ‘You’re the lead investigator and the right-hand man for Josh Kaul, you don’t know who my

In the last 24, hours members of Congress sent two letters seeking information on different ways government employees commandeer private organizations to censor Americans’ speech online.

On Thursday, Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., asked executives at Google, Instagram, Meta, Microsoft, Snapchat, TikTok, and X (formerly Twitter) to disclose government demands for removing Americans’ speech from their platforms. On Friday, the House Oversight Committee sought additional records from NewsGuard, a federally funded company that works to eliminate readership and revenue for outlets that report information that contradicts Democrat narratives.

Schmitt’s letter asks the social media monopolies to disclose if their companies have “experienced any pressure from government actors to censor user content in recent weeks,” to indicate whether they have “changed any policies in the last twelve months related to election integrity,” and to share any records these companies keep of when public officials and political parties ask the companies to limit or remove social media posts or hashtags.

Investigative journalism such as the Twitter Files and litigation in Murthy v. Missouri have revealed that dozens of federal agencies all the way up to the White House constantly pressure social media monopolies to remove posts and hashtags sharing government-disfavored ideas. The platforms now also deploy artificial intelligence to limit politically disfavored speech online. These disfavored ideas include observations that men and women are different, concerns about election integrity, or information that indicates people from different cultures sometimes live differently.

NEITHER THE TIMES NOR ANY OTHER MAJOR NEWS OUTLET HAS EVER ACKNOWLEDGED