Thomas Matthew Crooks: The registered Republican and gun lover who shot Trump
Thomas Matthew Crooks: The registered Republican and gun lover who shot Trump
The FBI says it has not yet identified a motive for the shooting
The shooter was 12 when Trump was first elected. archive
He could be a dyed-in-the-wool GOP for six generations with no connections to any Left organization whatever.
He'll be branded as a woke Antifa with a Black trans GF who was brain washed with peyote by a Native Shaman at a Liberal college.
Article says he was registered republican, but donated $15 to a grassroots democratic group shortly after the capitol riot, so.. there you go.
There's a political organizer with the same name a few counties over. In 2021 the shooter was 17, and not legally able to donate in PA.
I had a friend that was a die hard Bernie Sanders fan until Trump became relevant. He turned to a qanon following psycho that pushed away everyone close to him.
So a patriot?
Speaking of finances, I'd like to know how much he lost to trumps scams. I'm just impatient, that will (or won't) be discovered in the investigation
CNN reported that he registered Rep, but made donations to Dem. Of course that was right after it happened so plenty of room for your
Discord servers are restricted ring-fenced sections of the internet. They are often used by gaming groups and communities as secure chat rooms but are also used by fringe organisations to push their ideologies and discuss wild conspiracy theories and plots.
Now THAT'S something we can regulate - politicians
Discord is so obvious, yet "oh noes china tik tok meta insta!!"
“One of them Discord users…”
"Who is this 4Chan?"
Yes
And often gaming groups engage in the second, ruining it
Crooks appeared to have featured in a TV advert for the BlackRock finance company filmed at Bethel Park High School and broadcast in 2023.
I just found a breadcrumb of what will undoubtedly be my favorite conspiracy theory to come out of this.
I don't think enough people talk about what a boon the trump tax cuts for the rich were for the major asset management corps.
If you read the wiki comments there was someone questioning the relevance and thinking it should be removed before ending up a conspiracy theory lol
Is television commercial appearance notable?
"He is featured in a 2023 advertisement for BlackRock, an investment firm, that was filmed at his high school." [12] -> CNN "What we know page"
I can sort of see an argument for both sides
but I also pretty much guarantee its gonna be a talking point on A. Jones' show by end of this week if it stays in the article (maybe also if it doesn't, but yeah)
Poor bastard. At 20, mental capacity is nowhere near its peak, and how bad must your life be if you are willing to throw it away for some obese self-tanning cream using orange dipshit? This is what happens when mental illnesses aren't taken serious, and treatment is not easily available.
Well, let's see
Looks at everything on fire around us
Yeah I have no clue what could have caused his life to be bad enough to do something like that!
You've managed to identify the highly effective, yet morally reprehensible strategy for military recruitment. Get young men when they are at peak testosterone, but have limited pre-frontal cortex development.
He doesn't have to be exploited by his boss or landed lord anymore.
Peace someday. Hope yall find yours in this life not the next.
I knew it would be some red-hat lunatic. I fucking knew it the second I heard about it. But if course the
RepublicanNazi party are going to hammer out some left wing conspiracy horseshit using their usual tactful strategy. Which is to say scream the lies loudly, consistently, and in lockstep.Which is, of course, is the best tactic to convince gullible idiots of anything. It's literally the "firebrand preacher" method that has been slaughtering "the other" in times of strife since the dawn of civilization.
The conspiracy might focus on the "donated to Biden" thing. Ignoring that there's a guy with the same name who is a left leaning organizer a few counties over, and the donation was in 2021, when the shooter was 17 and not legally able to donate to a candidate.
I just jumped to this tab from the one about the project that let you type in morse code by opening and closing your laptop and thought you were talking about RedHat Linux for a second and was like "I mean a lot of people don't like RedHat, but calling them Nazis because they wrote a weird script is a bit extreme"
Sure, at first, they're just slamming their laptops shut to write morse code... but how long until it's a cell door that they're slamming? It's a slippery slope.
I'm actually incredibly excited to hear how the Conspiracy peddlers spin this, we'll study this level of crazy forever.
I was told "he's from Pennsylvania, he's registered as a republican, but he's a democrat. You see, the democrats have been voting as republican so they can vote on the republican ticket for Trumps enemies"
I just can't. I'm not looking forward to work this week.
"Oh, so there are even less Republicans than reported?"
I have heard some internet talking head turn their "democracts say fascist, make democrats shoot trump" into "democrats say fascist, even make republicans shoot trump".
"Their rhetoric is convincing even Republicans! They're clearly evil!"
Ah, a very selective recognition of stochastic terrorism. Except it doesn't quite fit because calling Repubs fascist isn't a lie.
It sure is easier to convince Repubs to shoot since they are already brainwashed. Too bad it is hard to direct them at people who deserve it instead of shoppers and nightclub attendees.
There is so much that is unknown. Everything about his true motives will, likely, be speculation forever. But it's best to let the FBI be the one that does the information reveal.
This kid was 20 though. He might have had psychosis. Last presidential assassination attempt was Hinkley. This is around the age things like schizophrenia start to present themselves IIRC. This might have been a suicide by cop type situation and he wanted to be famous in the process? Who the hell knows.
What if we had a law that you had to be 21 to buy guns though? That's in line with "common sense" gun control. I've heard Obama say that phrase countless times since Sandy Hook. It could have made this a little different, maybe? It almost certainly would have prevented Uvalde. This is political violence, it's horrible, I think this will help Trump win. Any left leaning person with half a brain can see that imo. This is also gun violence though. Gun control has to part of the answer to this. Remember who the Brady Bill was named after.
I understand the sentiment but I’d be a fan of having an adult age across the board.
If you can be drafted, you should be able to drink, buy guns, rent cars, vote, etc. That should all be at the same age, whatever that age is.
You can legally rent a car at 18, it’s just that no company wants to rent to you.
Yeah, and I generally think it should be 18. Some rights should come sooner such as medical autonomy and Romeo and Juliet style consent, but once you hit the age of adulthood you’re legally an adult
Last presidential assassination attempt was Hinkley.
That may just be the last one you were aware of, there have been a number of attempts since, several involving guns being fired at the president (or fired at a position the shooter thought he was)
It was reported that the weapon was his father’s.
Sometimes not even a safe will keep everything locked up. With enough time you can saw through most of the commercially available ones.
With enough time you can saw through most of the commercially available ones.
This is technically true but with the amount of time and effort it takes to get through a good portion of the safes I've seen, it would honestly be easier to go and steal one from some schmuck with a truck gun or whatever that's insecurely, uhhh, secured.
Do we know in this case whether or not the gun was even kept in a safe?
The gun wasn't his. He stole it from his dad. In a country with more guns than people it's simply impossible to disarm the bad guys.
Instead maybe we should tackle things like mental illness, lack of critical thinking skills, cognitive dissonance, and the destruction of family values. Also people should have to go through training and be licensed to be allowed on the internet.
False dichotomy.
Every other country the world over is trying to reduce the number of guns around and improve mental health.
Why not both? Tackle guns with more control and better mental health care and education.
Disarming bad guys shouldn't be the goal. Much like smoking in the UK. You wont stop all the older generationa from smoking but you can make it illegal for all the younger generations and over a longer peeiod of time theres no kne left that smokes.
If you tackle guns now and provide greater control over ownership whilst simultaneously educating younger people you will effectively prevent this sort of crim in the future.
At least thats my view.
By all reports, his father bought the gun. While I agree with them, your suggestions would have done literally nothing in this situation.
But it’s best to let the FBI be the one that does the information reveal.
Sirhan Sirhan would vehemently disagree.
This kid was 20 though. He might have had psychosis. Last presidential assassination attempt was Hinkley. This is around the age things like schizophrenia start to present themselves IIRC.
This is highly true and not something I've seen anyone bring up until now. It's a good point and I think it actually might be pretty likely. Good job.
How did they identify him using DNA? That's a fucking red flag. Is there some database I'm not aware of? Or did he have prior arrests?
There are genealogy databases that are public and or cooperate with authorities. Perhaps I’m a privacy nihilist, but IMHO, the cat’s kind of out of the bag for a lot of this. If you didn’t submit your DNA to a genealogy DB, you probably have family members that did so could see if they were 30% Italian or something.
That's how they caught the golden state killer. I think it was his niece submitted a DNA sample and it popped up as related to the unknown sample they had.
I once read an expert on this and it seems they only need a very low amount of DNA samples (like 0.1% of the population) in the database to be able to narrow down any search to the sibling level.
And traditional detective work can then figure out which sibling, if there are multiple.
So yeah, the cat is out of the bag with this one.
he didn't have a criminal record according to the article, but if DNA records existed for his parents, you could still identify someone as offspring with pretty high confidence based on that IIRC
Some organizations do mass DNA collection from kids to help identify them later in life.
The school sends out a notification that the parents can sign up to have their kid swabbed so their kid's tiny corpse can be identified. They don't word it like that, but that is the idea.
So he may have been swabbed as a kid and they referenced that.
These days, you can opt in having your child’s dna stored after birth, in case they go missing or a natural disaster or something. We did it, but we opted to keep it physically in our own possession. It’s a little vial.
Why is it a red flag
They could easily get samples from family members to confirm. I’m sure one or both of his parents were in discussions with the FBI shortly after this all went down
Yeah this seems obvious to me. “Can we swab your cheek to confirm if this is your son?” What parent wouldn’t want to know if their kid was dead or alive?
California has been collecting dna from babies since the 80s apparantly
I wonder how many people there are aware
I didn't realize how sketchy that all was. The form mentions genetic testing for conditions, but that was just like 2 of the spots. They did like 6 to a tiny newborn. I'd recommend other parents to object.
And I'm going to submit the destruction forms for my kids and myself.
Wait, this person shot Trump? How weird, he has the same name as the kid from yesterday who shot a teleprompter.
There's been conflicting information. Trump's right ear was bleeding, but the teleprompter was to his left (in front of him, but his head was currently turned right). If it was glass shrapnel, it should be the left of his face that was hit.
Is it possible there was a second shooter on the grassy knoll?
I mean, shrapnel can also ricochet, but I'm not sure what would've caused that in the immediate area around him really since there wasn't really much behind him. The world may never know.
John Wilkes Booth. Three names. Succeeded.
Lee Harvey Oswald. Three names. Succeeded.
John Hinkley Jr. Only two names. Failed.
Thomas Matthew Crooks. Three names. Failed.
Proof that we are living in a joke of a timeline. Can I go back and get on the right one please?
John Warnock Hinckley Jr.* Three names and a suffix.
Most Americans have a middle name (sometimes even two or more).
Furthermore murderers succeed all the time and still get described by two names: Richard Rameriez, Ed Gein, David Berkowitz, Jeffrey Dahmer, Albert Fish, Carl Panzram, Dennis Rader, Gary Ridgeway, Ed Kemper, Richard Chase, just to name a few. They all killed plenty people and all have middle names but we only say two. John Wayne Gacy OTOH gets all 3.
As to why the middle is sometimes omitted? Your guess is as good as mine, but clearly the deciding factor isn't success or failure.
After reading the article he only donated to the other group after 2021. Maybe he was a Trump fan until he tried to steal an election then changed his political views.
But either way we have no clue yet of why he did what he did.
Paywalled so can't see what they say, but didn't he donate in Jan 2021? He would have been 17, and thus prior to his registration to vote as a Republican.
The timeline's not incompatible with him being a never trump Republican.
Don't most Americans have a middle name? Doubt this kid went around being called three names in day to day life...
Sigh… Heard about this from my partner last night. I had forgot until just a few minutes ago (special thanks to alcohol for making life bearable). Looks like I have to stay off the internet for the rest of the year.
That's what I'm starting to think, too... Minus the alcohol bit.
Well, when the tone police pipe up with their "but tha both sides [democratic] rhetoric!" - Democrats need to tell them that: yeah, the Republicans need to stop whipping up so much violence.
Dude was just taking out a felon sex offender, GOP dream. It just so happen this one was an ex-president.
Just a damn kid. No wonder he missed. Probably expected some kinda aim assist to kick in
20 years old, he never owned a gun before, 130 yard shot, nicked the ear. Honestly he was closer than would have expected.
I totally agree. That's not an easy shot to make, especially for someone who is not trained or experienced.
He came absurdly close to changing the course of history.
He failed to take the Coriolis effect into account.
Looking at that diagram showing kids position in relation to trump and the sniper that shot the kid, it's bizarre that he could get a shot off before being spotted.
I heard people saw him, including the SS, but they waited to make sure he had an actual gun so they didn't just waste a kid.
But I have a hard time believing that cuz if they have to wait until someone takes a shot before they do anything then what's the point of even having security?
The distances they're likely dealing with are very likely a significant factor. Being that far away, optics can only do so much to show you what is happening.
It's hard to tell if it's a rifle or not, and if the rifle is a real gun or something like Airsoft or a pellet gun or something that doesn't actually pose any threat.
With the distance (or even up close) you can't really be picky about where you're aiming, you're just trying to hit something, so shots are generally towards the chest where you're most likely to hit, unfortunately shooting someone in the chest has the largest chance to be fatal, so you basically have to shoot to kill.
Killing someone for holding what looks like, but cannot be confirmed as a gun, on a building that's outside of your protection zone, is a tough call. Once a shot rings out, the intention of the person and what they have is made very clear, and taking a shot at that point is valid and warranted.
First, I don't think that SS, or any agency, wants to end the life of someone who is not doing anything wrong and not posing a risk to anyone, so IMO, they all rightfully err on the side of caution until a threat is confirmed or very obvious.
I'm aware that the local PD confirmed the threat, but I would assume that due to bad/slow/complex inter-agency and inter-team communication, the message did not reach the sharpshooter team which ultimately took the guy out... At least it didn't reach them prior to when the shots were fired.
Knowing what I do about radio, communications and the methods by which information is transferred, the local PD officer likely radioed dispatch about it, where they faffed about trying to find how to contact the SS, ultimately they probably called someone in the SS, who relayed it to an on-site (or dispatch type) operator, likely sending it out on the wrong channel (sharp shooters are often on their own channel AFAIK), and it took so long for the information to reach the sharpshooter team that by the time they could have set up the shot, he was already firing at Trump. This is all conjecture and speculation based on my experience running communications for various events (I'm not security nor medical nor anything else, I'm part of a team brought in specifically to relay information between locations in real time). There's often a bit of a game of telephone happening, and the message is usually not clear getting to the final person.
In my experience I've had bad reports from random event goers that turn into nothing. Recently at an event I had a report of someone collapsed, vomiting, and needing medical. When I arrived, there was nobody there, myself and the medical staff were thoroughly confused. We asked around and apparently, they didn't collapse, they threw up a bit (probably alcohol related as there was alcohol at the event), then shuffled off by friends. We had no description of the person, nothing to go on at all on order to find them and confirm their condition, only a vague direction from the witnesses in trucks and tents nearby. We never found them, and the person who originally reported it disappeared into the crowd as quickly as they appeared. So we were left to wander around trying to find someone who looked like they had just thrown up in a crowd of people (likely around 200 or more). Another example was someone saying there was an injury, gave a location and myself and the medical team jumped into action. We went to the described location and nobody needed help nor had an inquiry. After canvassing around for about 3-4 minutes, we found them several hundred feet away, stationary, waiting for us to arrive, but in a completely different area.
My point is, getting accurate information across from those that need help to those that can help is a challenge because the simple game of telephone between the points is unreliable at best. If you're ever reporting anything, to anyone, please, for the love of everything, be specific and direct. Don't just point and say, "over there" because there's an entire world of stuff "over there". If you can cite a nearby address or landmark, do that, otherwise give a direction and your best estimate of distance. If it's a person or thing, do your best to describe the individual or object. Don't assume that the recipient knows anything about the area.
I love doing communications work for events, it's one of my favorite hobbies. However, people are garbage at telling me what they need and where. To be clear, my team often works with medical/security, and often we travel with them to give updates to the rest of the team as we go. We have people listening where their only job is to relay information and record it, similar to dispatch. So we put as much information as we can on the air. Radio calls travel at the speed of light, so we can often get information distributed more quickly than having to pick up your cellphone and calling someone. Our systems are also independent from the cellphone networks so if there's a problem with those services, we can still operate, giving us an advantage over other options, including stuff like GMRS/FRS which can be intercepted or interfered with by anyone with a handheld radio capable of using those channels. I know that the police, military, secret service, Airforce, etc, all have their own, independent, radio frequencies that do not overlap, so communication between agencies is usually dealt with separately from the radio. The best case is that one member of an agency is outfitted with a radio from the other service, so dispatch can call them directly to relay traffic. Behind that is that two dispatch operators are in constant communication, either by phone or by presence (being physically near eachother), but neither seems to be the case here. No matter what, it's still a game of telephone to get a message from one agency to another, or even from one field operator to another when they're on different channels, even within the same service/agency.
They don't. They have a shoot first, ask questions later mandate. There was retired USSS basically saying they're given the discretion.
Nobody would be screaming for an agents head if they offed someone with a gun (bb gun or not) setting up on a roof with siteline to a president at a campaign event.
I saw a video of people pointing him out to security as he climbed up on the roof.
Why didn't they do anything? Maybe just thought no shooter would set up in plain sight like that.
All very weird.
Also incredibly sad.
They totally knew he was there. There's a video of the counter sniper lining him up right as the shooting started.
Archive: https://archive.is/OKkIi
I can only imagine how disenfranchised this young man had to feel to be able to do this
He didn't shoot Trump, he shot towards him.
He hit his ear, so technically he shot Trump.
lol:
Crooks tried out for his school’s rifle team but failed to make it because he was a “comically bad shot” and made jokes deemed inappropriate with firearms around, two former classmates told The New York Post.
He missed his target by close to 20ft, Jameson Murphy said.
“He tried out…and was such a comically bad shot he was unable to make the team and left after the first day,” he added.
(Removed as it’s baseless speculation, more or less)
I hope we find something more on why he did it, it will he interesting. He did donate to a democratic candidate though. (https://www.reuters.com/world/us/heres-what-we-know-about-thomas-matthew-crooks-suspected-trump-rally-shooter-2024-07-14/)
This isn't as easy as it seems. Apparently it's not uncommon to register to vote in a closed primary like PA for the opposite party you prefer in order to dilute the vote for the candidate you don't like by voting for the person running against them in the party. So he may be a "registered republican voter", but that may be as a minor act of sabotage rather than his real politics.
E: what’s up with the rebuttals? “Yeah it happens but not really”? So it happens, but it couldn’t with this guy? If I’m wrong and he’s actually a Republican, great! But downvoting the possibility he registered the opposite of his beliefs isn’t gonna make it disappear.
Apparently it's not uncommon
You know what's incredibly more common? Being an actual Republican and voting in a Republican Primary.
Everyone loves a harmless conspiracy theory, but this theory is anything but. Unless the shooter specifically admitted to this conspiracy theory, peddling this bullshit is reckless. About as stupid as child molesters in pizza place basements that don't exist.
Is it even more common to being a republican and assassinating the leader of the party? He “said” he was republican, but the shooting at republicans say otherwise. And i trust actions more than words. And the actions don’t get any more louder than that. Besides it does not matter one iota what Party he is affiliated with. The only thing that matters is the disappointment that he missed
I would agree with the theory (as I've personally witnessed people registering for opposing party to wreck havoc there internally), BUT: I rarely came across hardcore gun-loving Democrat, watching NRA-related content.
The last two points are very valid. It’s definitely something I considered, but this is such an F’d up timeline that I can’t help but be very pessimistic.
This definitely happens, though it's not remotely as common as just voting for your preferred party in the primary.
A friend and I both voted Republican in a primary a couple years ago. The Democratic lineup wasn't interesting and it was obvious who was going to win on it. Quite frankly our votes didn't matter much there. But the GOP contenders were a mixed bag of semi-moderates and MAGA bootlickers. We felt it was most important to keep the Trumpy psychos out of the general election, so we voted against them.
In a way I think it was the right call at the time. On the other hand, I get a lot of SMS spam to my number now from scammy pro-Trump sources. Of course I report those to the FTC every time, but it's still gross.
Indeed. Party affiliation only indicates which party’s primary you wanted to participate in.
"When people tell you who they are, believe them."
Also, Occam's razor.
Just letting people know what a PA resident told me. Too bad people don’t want to hear it. If the guy was left leaning and registered as a Republican downvotes aren’t going to make it better.
That is almost entirely a myth. Yes, there are 'cross over votes' in states that don't have open primaries but facilitate party enrollment, but those cross over voters are almost always 'independent' voters who enroll and then unenroll and are not doing anything other than voting for the candidate of their choice in the primary that candidate is running in. So called 'strategic voting', as far as I know, has never made any difference in any presidential primary, but go ahead and bring up the bodies.
It's not for presidential races.
Its for state level races where you're in one of the 40+ states where it's a forgone conclusion what party wins the general.
So some people give up their presidential primary vote, to vote in the state level primaries for the party virtually guaranteed to win their state, then vote for their preferred party in the general even if their candidate won the primary for the other party
You might not think it's common, but it's the only way a lot of people's votes have any actual effect, so lots of people do it
The super ugly ones have little to lose.
Odd that a Republican would.
Maybe he was a 2nd amendment guy who actually took the defending against tyranny bit seriously. Highly unusual, but not unthinkable.
There are quite a few republicans pissed that Trump is the ticket again. They don’t like him and find him destructive to, well, everything.
Not so odd.
Not all republicans are the type that stormed the capital. Those just happen to be the loudest and draw the most attention.
I'm betting on libertarian
There are Republicans who are upset that the party isn't extremist enough.
If someone was republican who sees through the Trump cult, it'd be reasonable to see them infuritated with the party they once identified with. Given his age I'm not so sure I'd be conclusive one way or another right now though.
Seems mental distress and illnesses played another large factor here, as they so frequently like to do. Im not surprised the people being peddled the most propaganda are the one's 'snapping'.
Why?
Some articles (like this one from USA Today have mentioned that in '21 he made a small donation to the Progressive Turnout Project, and it's interesting that that's missing from this article. Did it turn out to not be true or did they purposefully omit that?
I'm from Yurop so I don't even pretend to understand the election system in the US let alone PA, but I've seen some comments that led me to understand that he could well be a Democrat even though he was a "registered Republican" because there might not even be good D candidates for him to vote for in PA, and many D voters tactically vote for the least bad R candidate.
Not sure him being a "gun lover" really necessarily paints him as a Republican either; Americans regardless of party affiliation can be pretty… uh, enthusiastic about guns, although yeah it does seem to be more common on the right but I'm not sure it's enough to draw any conclusions from it.
And just so there's no misunderstandings, I really don't have a dog in this hunt so I'm not looking to blame Democrats for the shooting, I'm just trying to digest the news I've been reading.
NY Times article interviewed a classmate who indicated he had right leaning views.
The Republican party registration has other corroborating information listed such as middle initial address and date of birth.
The donation only has the same first and last name.
So they're including the Republican party registration, as it's more confirmed... And they're not saying he voted Republican, just that he was registered that way.
As for having an interest in guns, he owned an AR-15, so must have had some interest there.
As for having an interest in guns, he owned an AR-15, so must have had some interest there.
He was wearing a Demolition Ranch Tshirt. It's a popular YouTube gun channel.
He was wearing a T-shirt from the merch store of the "Demolition Ranch" YouTube channel (huge gun channel) when he did this so yeah definitely
The donation is not confirmed to be him. The listed donation just came with a first and last name. No age or birth date, with no middle initial or name. There are a lot of people with the same first and last name and there's no reason to believe it was this particular Thomas Crooks that made the donation.
The address on the Act Blue donation is also listed as Pittsburgh, not Bethel Park.
.
Turns out that was a different person with the same name.
Some articles (like this one from USA Today have mentioned that in '21 he made a small donation to the Progressive Turnout Project, and it's interesting that that's missing from this article. Did it turn out to not be true or did they purposefully omit that?
It was a donation to a get out the vote project. On inauguration day. About as useful as tits on a tractor.
I don't know if he made the donation to make it seem like he was a Democrat or for no good reason, but he didn't donate $15 on January 20th to help Democratic turnout.
They probably left it out because getting into it would only muddy the waters or even lend false credence to the cult's conspiracy theories about him being "deep state antifa" or whatever.
It depends on the state (and their election laws) but some people register for the opposite primary to try and influence it.
I definitely think it's possible he could be either. The bit about guns is mainly because guns is one of their things. Some Republicans love guns more than anything.
Either way, I'm mostly impressed at how quickly those facts became the most important bits of information. I guess it makes sense though. I'm just glad he's white and not brown. lol
Nothing here is controversial in the slightest, why the down votes?
And yes, there are plenty of liberal gun nuts, like me.
And sadly, this won Trump the election...
Don’t give up, continue the fight.
It's July. The public has an extremely short attention span. You can't say that with any amount of certainty two whole days after it happened and with 3.5 months to go.
Things are looking a lot better now that it's come out that the shooter was a registered republican.
registered Republican voter
WTF does that even mean? Voting during elections is anonymous, isn't it?
In many states the party you're registered with is public. Who you voted for is kept private. The fact that you voted can't be kept private in any real way if you're voting in person.
Yeah and in mine for instance most people don’t realize they’re registering. The party registration process is selecting which primary to vote in.
It’s public record. Why? I don’t know.
Edit this was answered
Nope, 69 year old with same name, look at other comments in here for the source
Word is that's a name clash