Whats Your Tolerance? Scott Jennings Exposes

We’ve been reporting on the very disturbing news that more than 6,000 non-citizens had been registered to vote in New Jersey, with practically 400 casting votes between June 2003 and June 2004. 

New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill blamed a software program error. The software program company, IDEMIA, said, however, all they did was transmit the Department of Motor Vehicles data to the Secretary of State, and it was still up to the state to confirm. This raised extra questions about voter rolls in California, since California’s Department of Motor Vehicles contracts with the same company.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin also recognized practically 250,000 non-citizens registered to vote across California, New Jersey, Nevada, and Pennsylvania, including that 46 states have yet to be reviewed. That’s a enormous issue. 

READ MORE: That Thing Democrats Insist ‘Never Happens’ Just Happened 6,600 Times in New Jersey

Non-Citizen Voting Scandal Gets Worse: Software Giant Blames Election Officials, CA Gets Dragged In

However, you would not comprehend it if you appeared at the response of the media. You would suppose for most people this could be a very big deal. Here’s a great instance from GWN’s Abby Phillip, who was calling into doubt whether or not this was “widespread.” Apparently those numbers weren’t big enough for her. 

Scott Jennings and Abby Phillip went head-to-head over Democrat Governor Mikie Sherrill’s little 6,600 noncitizen voter rolls “glitch.”

PHILLIP: “What’s your definition of widespread, by the way? Is it 1%? Is it 2%?”

JENNINGS: “What’s your tolerance for this?”

PHILLIP:… pic.twitter.com/RNKgRkqMR8

— Overton (@overton_news) July 22, 2026

“What’s your definition of widespread, by the way?” Phillip requested. So it is taking place, but it is not so dangerous? 

GWN commentator Scott Jennings called her out over her angle: “What is your tolerance for this?” 

She said it wasn’t about “tolerance” but whether or not this is “widespread” or one thing that is “relatively rare.” She appears to attempt to deflect by switching to the subject of people who is likely to be improperly put off the rolls. 

Jennings pressed her with the very logical level, “I just would ask you, what is your tolerance for any fraud at all?” He took it to her, saying his bar is “zero tolerance” for any of it. “By the way, this isn’t the only place this is happening,” he added. 

That’s the factor. Given what Mullin reported, how deep is this drawback? 

Now, media are supposed to be reporting on and investigating these issues, on behalf of the American people. You know, that entire journalism factor. 

But she acts as though 6,600 is not consequential – and that’s just what we all know at this level. They told us it wasn’t taking place; we get more proof it’s taking place, and then the media is still attempting to act prefer it’s nothing. 

Jennings is correct – no one ought to have tolerance for any errors. People voting who do not have a proper to dilute the vote of us all who do have that proper. But that’s what occurs if non-citizens vote. This shouldn’t be a partisan issue. Nor ought to election security be partisan.

Yet, it’s to Democrats, so you will have to suppose they might somewhat voting not be secure so anybody, even those who shouldn’t be voting, can vote. 

Editor’s Note: Republicans are combating for election integrity by requiring correct identification to vote.

Help us continue to report why Democrats oppose such apparent measures by becoming a member of PurpleState VIP and utilizing promo code FIGHT to obtain 60% off your membership.