reSee.it - Tweets Saved By @PatriotMarkCook

Posted - April 7, 2026 at 10:27 PM

Saved - April 8, 2026 at 11:35 AM

reSee.it AI Summary

I acknowledge an urgent notice declaring BMDs and DREs untrustworthy due to irremediable data exfiltration risks from compromised vendors or third parties. I will prohibit use of these systems, switch to hand-marked paper ballots, and safeguard ballots with tamper-evident containment. I will rely on hand counts and independent audits, publish only paper-based precinct results, and report implementation within 48 hours.

@PatriotMarkCook - Mark Cook

Emergency Notice: Critical Exploit Vector in Early Voting and Pre-Poll-Close Tabulation Processes – Broad Compromise Scenarios Date: April 7, 2026 To: All State and Local Election Officials, Election Directors, and County Clerks Subject: Immediate Action Required – Prohibition of BMD and DRE Systems Due to Irremediable Data Exfiltration Risk from Vendor or Third-Party Infiltration This notice details a sophisticated manipulation vector involving real-time voter turnout tracking combined with actual early vote data. When voting systems can be infiltrated—whether by a compromised vendor or third-party bad actors—the systems cannot be trusted or used, as they enable undetectable exfiltration of precise vote data that can be leveraged for targeted ballot stuffing prior to poll closure. Threat Description Sophisticated actors, including compromised vendors or third-party bad actors who have infiltrated systems through hacking, supply-chain attacks, insider access, remote exploits, or any other available means, can harvest real-time voter check-in data alongside actual tabulated vote results from Ballot Marking Devices (BMDs) and Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) machines during early voting. This enables dynamic modeling to determine the exact number, type, and distribution of fraudulent ballots needed to offset legitimate votes. Infiltrated BMDs and DREs can exfiltrate vote data through hidden channels regardless of physical seals, network disconnection attempts, or claimed security features. Because these systems generate and store vote data in real time while voters are still casting ballots, the harvested information allows precision adjustments via mail-in or drop-box stuffing before polls close. Post-poll-closure use is impossible, as voting ends when polls close. Therefore, BMD and DRE systems present an irremediable risk and cannot be deployed in any capacity if system trustworthiness cannot be independently verified against all infiltration vectors. How the Exploit Can Be Executed ▫️BMDs and DREs capture and potentially transmit exact vote totals during active voting periods. ▫️Combined with poll-book data, this creates a real-time predictive model for surgical ballot stuffing. ▫️Infiltration (vendor or third-party) allows covert data extraction even from ostensibly secured or air-gapped systems. ▫️Fraudulent ballots are then injected to precisely offset real votes, defeating audits based on compromised machine baselines. Required Mitigation Steps Election officials shall implement the following controls immediately. These measures assume BMD and DRE systems are fully untrustworthy due to infiltration risks and prohibit their use entirely. Prohibition of BMD and DRE Systems Immediately cease all use of Ballot Marking Devices (BMDs) and Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) machines for any voting. ▫️Do not deploy these systems at any point in the election cycle, including early voting or Election Day, as no post-poll-closure voting window exists. ▫️Transition exclusively to hand-marked paper ballots as the sole method of recording voter intent. Secure Handling of Existing Paper Ballots ▫️Treat all previously cast ballots on BMD-printed records as paper-only where possible, subject to full hand count. ▫️Store all ballots in tamper-evident, sequentially numbered containers under continuous bipartisan or multi-party observation. ▫️Prohibit any machine tabulation or data output from compromised systems. Chain-of-Custody and Processing Protocols ▫️Keep all mail-in and drop-box ballots sealed and unprocessed until after poll closure. ▫️Perform all tabulation via hand count or independently verified, non-vendor-dependent methods after polls close. ▫️Reconcile totals solely against voter check-in records using paper-based procedures. Mandatory Paper-Based Verification ▫️Conduct full hand counts or rigorous risk-limiting audits based exclusively on original hand-marked paper ballots. ▫️Ignore all data or totals originating from BMDs or DREs. ▫️Publish precinct-level results only after independent paper-based verification and certification. Immediate Notification and Escalation ▫️Distribute this notice to all poll workers and observers. ▫️Report any continued use or suspected data exfiltration from BMD/DRE systems to state and federal election security officials immediately. ▫️Engage independent forensic auditors for equipment assessment where prior use occurred. Critical Guidance BMD and DRE systems cannot be used safely when infiltration by vendors or third-party actors is possible, because they enable real-time data exfiltration during active voting, with no viable window for secure post-closure operation. The only reliable mitigation is complete prohibition and exclusive reliance on hand-marked paper ballots under strict human oversight. Election officials bear ultimate responsibility and cannot delegate integrity to potentially compromised electronic systems. Failure to prohibit BMD and DRE use exposes the election to undetectable manipulation. Officials are directed to confirm receipt and implementation status, including confirmation of transition to hand-marked paper ballots, to their state election authority within 48 hours. - End of Notice -

@PatriotMarkCook — Mark Cook

Posted - February 12, 2026 at 9:40 PM

Saved - February 13, 2026 at 3:20 PM

reSee.it AI Summary

I present a PROOF OF CONCEPT: a 'special' stored procedure that moves 25% of one candidate's votes to another during result reporting, then self-destructs and leaves no trace. Do not install on a Dominion Voting System—it's illegal. As Joe says, "Just don't".

@PatriotMarkCook - Mark Cook

🚨 Dominion PROOF OF CONCEPT: A 'special' stored procedure that moves 25% of one candidate's votes to another candidate during the result reporting stage, then automatically self-destructs and returns to the original stored procedure without leaving any trace it was there. This is a PROOF OF CONCEPT. Even though the voting system would allow this, DO NOT INSTALL IT on a Dominion Voting System. That would be illegal!!! As Joe says, "Just don't"

@PatriotMarkCook — Mark Cook

Posted - May 20, 2025 at 8:13 PM

Saved - May 25, 2025 at 1:58 PM

reSee.it AI Summary

I just uncovered a shocking coincidence in Arapahoe County, Colorado that everyone should see. It's crucial for all citizens to pay attention and take notes. I'm urging you to share this with anyone who needs to know—there's more to come soon!

@PatriotMarkCook - Mark Cook

‼️ ARAPAHOE COUNTY BOMBSHELL?!?! ‼️ You will NEVER believe the 'coincidence' I just found in Arapahoe County Colorado! Every Arapahoe County and Colorado citizen, AND United States Citizen should watch this and TAKE NOTES!!! @KingSolomon006 @DrazhaS @FSociety_1942 @ShawnSmith1776 @mad_liberals @ElJefe53209440 @joeoltmannX @realJoeHoft Send this to anyone else you think needs to see it (which is pretty much everyone) and yes, there's much more coming soon!

Video Transcript AI Summary

After the 2020 election, Arapahoe County, Colorado, released its cast vote record (CVR), a spreadsheet of ballot data. An unnatural pattern was found where the rate of change in how Republicans and Democrats voted on amendment b mirrored each other. Similar behavior was observed in Clark County, Nevada. A new CVR file with drastically different data was released, along with a PDF stating an assistant professor at Yale, Shiro Kirawaki, notified the county of errors in the original CVR due to redaction mistakes. This raises questions about the validity of the 2020 election audit in Arapahoe County. The new CVR was released without public announcement. Analysis revealed 15.8 million changes in the new file. While the changes didn't significantly alter overall election results (432 votes worth of difference), individual ballots were modified. The parallel motion seen in the original data disappeared in the new file, but manipulation artifacts remain. Metadata shows Corrine Hennage, elections manager at Arapahoe County, created the original file and previously worked at Dominion Voting Systems. Hennage and Matt Crane participated in a risk limiting audit. Jim Dunst suggested storing voting equipment in sealed containers instead of sealing every data port.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: Alright. I'm gonna give a quick summary for anyone that hasn't been following along recently because it's been a busy week. So after the twenty twenty election, Arapahoe County, Colorado released their cast vote record. What that is is essentially a spreadsheet of the record of votes that were cast in the election. Every line on the spreadsheet is a ballot, and all the columns on the spreadsheet are different choices on that ballot. So essentially, if you look at this file, can replay the whole election. You should be able to if the data is valid. And you can look at every single line and see every choice on every ballot. You could add up all the columns and see what the totals are in order to know what the results of that election are. And you can see how the ballots change over time as they're coming in. Now, really, the ballot shouldn't change much over time because they should all be coming in from all over the place. And generally, there'll be an average, for that area of the ballots as they come in. But there was a pattern found in the file that was very inorganic. Didn't make any sense why it would be like that. It wasn't something that was natural. Was a very unnatural pattern. And Ed Sullivan actually found it. So let me go ahead and pull that up here. And I'll move my head out of the way a little bit here so we can look at it. So what we're looking at here is this is the relationship of how votes are cast, looking at it a little bit differently. What it's looking at is in red, those are the people that voted for Trump, and the blue are people that voted for Biden. And this is how they voted on amendment b. So you would think that people that voted for Trump versus people that voted for Biden would probably vote differently on a particular issue because usually they're a bit far apart. In fact, if you look at other counties in Colorado, that's how they did vote. They were pretty far apart. Now this isn't specifically how they voted. What we're looking at is the rate of change of how they voted. So for instance, when we'll say, we'll call the people that voted for Trump will call them Republicans and the people that voted for Biden will call them Democrats because that's probably pretty close. And this is not a d versus r issue at all, and I'm not claiming that these are actually the votes because it looks pretty fake in a number of ways. So I'm not condemning anyone for voting any particular way. I'm just telling you this is what the data shows. And what it shows is as, for instance, as Republicans vote, higher amounts of no on this issue, the Democrats follow and also vote a higher amount of no. And then when Republicans start voting less no on this issue, the Democrats follow and and vote less no. And they track each other. You look, the red and the blue are are pretty close all the way through here. So as one goes up, the other goes up. And one goes down, the other goes down. That is not normal. The rate of change in the percentage of people that are voting no on this issue should not match this closely or even be remotely this close. There should be a pretty big gap between these naturally. So what this tells us is something's unnatural about the numbers in this file. So the same type of behavior happened over here in Clark County, Nevada. They looked at the same thing, same type of behavior. And it's just not necessarily on every single position on the ballot, but just some. It's odd. It indicates that there is some type of unnatural data in here, which means we should look further into it. And and we all have been looking further into it. Ed has been doing an incredible job at looking very closely into this stuff. So I'll take you kind of on a little journey here. Well, we noticed a couple days ago, last week, that all of a sudden, the data, the CVR, the cast vote record, a new one was put on the website. In fact, let me just jump back a couple here, right here under arapahovotes.gov/transparency. Of course, they always call it transparency, so people think it's transparent even though it's unlikely to be transparent. It's kind of like the facade of transparency. But this new link showed up here. So one, we got, and that was just a couple days ago. But a month or so or so ago, the CVR file, the cast vote record file that had been previously released after the twenty twenty election, and obviously that election is far over, They came out with a whole new file. And the whole new file for the twenty twenty election had drastically different data in it, and I'm gonna show you that. But in addition to that, as we're looking at all this, all of a sudden, this new link showed up on the website. And when you click on that link, it takes you to this page here, and there's a PDF file. And you click on that PDF file, and you get this weird PDF document that apparently is from the Arapahoe County Clerk And Recorder, so it says. And it says Arapahoe County on or before 10/29/2024, which was a week before the twenty four election. Apparently, this guy named mister Shiro Kirawaki, who is an assistant professor at Yale University, let me go ahead and move myself out of the way here, an assistant professor at Yale University, notified the clerk and recorder's office that he suspected there were errors in the published twenty twenty general election cast vote record. Isn't that weird? Four years after an election, this random assistant professor at Yale contacts the county and says there's some problem with their cast vote record. Now it goes on to say, suggesting that the errors were likely due to mistakes made during the redaction process. Now the citizens rely on the cast vote record in order to audit the election, and the risk limiting audit is also part of the process used to guarantee the results of the election, to detect fraud in the election. Well, the cast vote record is used to feed the risk limiting audit to know what to look at, what ballots to look at. So they're all tied together. So if now this guy's coming out saying that there's a problem with the cast vote record, that certainly brings into question the entire audit for the twenty twenty election in Arapahoe County. And how is this random guy, from Yale that doesn't even Speaker 1: live in Colorado, doesn't live Speaker 0: in Arapahoe County, comes to Arapahoe County and tells them this. And then remember, this is a week or so before the twenty four election. No one ever said anything. Isn't it funny how the secretary of state never of Colorado never mentioned that? I mean, I know she was probably busy trying to figure out how to cover up the BIOS password breach that she happened allowed to happen. That's a whole another thing you should look into. But it's odd that they kept this a secret. Now the secretary of state, Jenna Griswold, also kept this buyer BIOS password breach a complete secret, even from her own clerks in the counties until it went out in the news, and then all of a sudden she said something about it. But so there's a cover up there as well. But then here's cover up number two. Very strange. Right? So there's a problem with the twenty twenty class vote records. They don't say anything. The election happens. Trump wins. A bunch of down ballot races were stolen. I'm I'd say about 99.999% positive of that. And then they put out this new cast vote record, but they don't say anything. No announcement. No public announcement. They just kind of sneak it in on their website. And then we find it just about a week ago and realize it's very, very different. And then after we go public with that, then they come out with this little PDF file we're looking at, claiming that they knew back on October 29, on or about October 29, that there was an issue, but they didn't notify any of the public up until a couple days ago when they put this out. It it reeks of dishonesty, doesn't it? So let's go a little bit further into it. So we talked about this graph. We talked about this file here. And for anyone that wants to look into this, and please do look into this. I think it's really important that that you do. Right here at this link is these original files. And please, there are plenty of other ways to get these files. One, you can go right to their website and download the current one. The previous one, although you can download at this link, I'm not gonna tell you to just trust me, blindly trust me, because you shouldn't blindly trust anyone. But I have confirmed with everyone I know that's downloaded this file previous to the new one being put out, And they're all identical. But don't take my word for it. Feel free. Check with anyone else. There's probably plenty of people that can chime in and say, I downloaded it as well. And you can all confirm with a hash. A hash is a digital fingerprint of the file, and I have listed the hashes of the files involved. The zip files that were released by the county, and I've even hashed the files inside the zip files so we know we're all looking at exactly the same information. Got nothing to hide here. This all needs to be out in the open. You know, it needs to be completely public and honest. So let's go to the next. This is actually that shine a light link. If you wanna go and download these for yourself, by all means do. And then, of course, confirm to make sure they're legitimate. But they're right here under new CVR provided by Arapahoe County. That's the new file. Original CVR provided by Arapahoe County is the original file that's been out there for years. And then there's some information on mister Kerritwaki here if you'd like to download any of those files. A lot of papers he's written. I did a little collection of them there. And then, there's some new the new PDF files. One of them that I just showed you is also here as well for documentation purposes. So feel free. Check that out. Download all you like from there, and let's dive in. So I did analyze the entire file, both of them before and after to see all the changes in them. And there's, like, 15,800,000 changes in this file just for Arapahoe County alone. But I wanted to show you what the first five ballots looked like. So here we go. Let me I'll go ahead and zoom in, and we'll start over here. So the each of these represent a ballot. So ballot one, ballot two, ballot three, four, and five. And right here is the before. So this is the original file right there. And then after is that same ballot, but in the new file. So we're just looking at what that ballot looked like before and what that ballot looked like after. There should be no change. Obviously, the ballot was already voted. The ballot's not magically changing. Well, we wouldn't think it is. Right? But there's a lot of magic in elections apparently, considering they are kind of a magic show. But they should not change from before after. The same information should be in each file, but it isn't. In fact, a lot of the choices on the ballot have been changed. So what I did is if there's a green block, that means there's no change. A one, a one, no change. A zero, zero, no change. But if you look over here, there was a blank, and then the blank changes to a zero in the next file. And so that gets a red block indicating that there's a change. So every red block here shows the changes across all the choices on the ballot between the before file and the after file. And I did all of the five first ballots. Now I could have done this all the way down to, you know, 350,000 plus, but that'd be a lot to go through on a quick little video here. So I'm just gonna show you the first five. They all look the same. There's only five total that weren't changed. Five out of over 350,000 ballots that were not affected by this, but every single one of the others were. And what I did is I put the number of changes that each had over here on the right. So this ballot number one had 61 changes made to it. Ballot number two, fifty seven changes, fifty, sixty four, and 48. You'll also notice right here that I marked these particular choices. And what these are, these are let me scroll over so Speaker 1: you can see Speaker 0: it here. It's the amendment b that is the subject of the initial investigation with that weird what's called parallel motion where the the democrats and the republican rate of change of voting mirrored each other, like I explained. So these are just those two choices. You can see in ballot number one, there was no change in that, but ballot number two had a change, ballot three had changed. In fact, they both had two changes, and then four and five didn't have a change. So there still was some shenanigans in even here as well and in all these other races. I mean, it's just incredible. So I did another one of these, and I wanted to show a little different piece of information here. So let me zoom way in. Alright. So we're looking at the same thing, but I added right here. I added a row, and this row at the bottom, this signifies the number of changes in the columns up above in the total election, all 350 plus thousand ballots. So this is how much did the races change between the before and the after. And so if we look here, you can see some of these, even where we know there were modifications, it didn't actually change the totals at the bottom across the whole election, across every single ballot. But some of these did. You know, this race was changed by six votes. This one, was four, zero zero three and a one. And if we scroll over here, you know, they're all pretty small. If there were changes, it's very minimal. Wouldn't change the results of the election. But it did result in a bit of a change. We even have one that's off by 10 votes. Here's another one off by 10, another one off by 10, you know, seven, four, six, five, eight, all the way across. So in total, across the whole election, I came up with 432 votes worth of difference. The total votes worth of difference across the whole thing. So pretty miniscule when you add everything up. But the crazy thing is you can't just go changing ballots. And we're essentially looking at all the choices on these particular ballots, and they're moving them around. They're massaging them all around. It's almost like they scrambled them, almost like they created franking ballots, and that's very odd. So let's look at this data again. So we looked at that before, that graph, this is the same thing. What I did is I kinda shaded the top and the bottom because I want you to focus on the center. This is the before. This is the parallel motion that Ed was talking about. So let's see if I can get me out of here. Actually, I was probably better over there. Alright. So this is what Ed was talking about before. This parallel motion in the rate of change of the way Democrats and Republicans voted. They're almost right on top of each other. Now take a look at this. Here's the new file. The same graph, the same thing run on the new file after they scrambled all the choices on the ballots. Here's what that looks Speaker 1: like. Notice the Democrats and Republicans are very different. So you look here. Speaker 0: These are the Trump voters up here now, and the Biden voters are down here. Notice they're not on top of each other anymore. So now this looks much more natural than it did before. It still looks odd to me. I still see a downward trend here and I see an upward trend there, And that tells me there's still something a little bit off because these really should be pretty horizontal lines. There shouldn't be a trend to these, but there's still a trend. So there's an artifact of manipulation still. And I looked at it a different way. I looked at it a cum no percentage over time. And when you look at that, it's blatantly obvious that this is still manipulated data. What it looks like is they tried to cover up one symptom of the manipulation, but in doing so, they actually exacerbated another one. You know, these people are smart, but they're not brilliant smart. Kind of dumb in some ways, but it it and they're criminals. I'm not saying Arapahoe County are criminals, but whoever is behind this manipulation is absolutely a criminal. But we're gonna get to the bottom of that here. So here's both of them together so you can see them. In the center here is the original file, and then the top and the bottom are the same data but in the new file, how they kind of notice they spread them out a little bit. Alright. So here's some interesting things I found. I looked into the metadata in the original file, and the metadata in the original file, it shows the creator of that file, the Excel file, which did not come natively out of the Dominion software, is Karine Hennig. Corrine Hennage. Who is Corrine Hennage? Well, let's look into who Corrine Hennage is. Here's Corrine Hennage. She's, elections manager, operations, Arapahoe County, Colorado. And we'll scroll down, look at her LinkedIn profile. And, okay. It looks normal. Arapahoe County government, elections manager operations, interim duty of elections, elections manager operations, special project lead. That's, you know, ten plus years, you know, fourteen years of service, looks like, for Arapahoe County, Colorado. Where do you think she worked before, though? You'll never guess. No one will ever guess this. Right? Are you ready? Are you ready? Are you ready? Oh. Oh. Oh. Account manager, product specialist. Speaker 1: Oh, what's that little what what what's that logo? No. Speaker 0: Dominion Voting Systems. Are you telling me that this person responsible for this cast vote record that looks like it's just manufactured in parts actually used to work at Dominion Voting Systems for almost ten years prior to going to Arapahoe County government. There isn't a pattern of this, is there? Speaker 1: There is, by the way. Speaker 0: Let's see her endorsements. There's some of her endorsements. Pay attention to these names, by the way. There's more coming about a lot of these people. Oh, Matt Crane. That sounds familiar. Lisa Flanagan Crane. Oh, and Lisa Flanagan Crane, former product specialist at Dominion Voting Systems. And Matt Crane is a consultant for Speaker 1: CISA. Crane. Crane. Who else do we have here? Oh, interesting. Speaker 0: Make note of the names. Payroll information. K. Henage. Karine Kenage. Probably same person here. Speaker 1: Feel free to look all this up. It's all right there. Now do you Speaker 0: know that there is this risk limiting audit, report done as a result of a grant. There's the grant. State of Colorado, right Speaker 1: on the Secretary of State website. You can pull it up yourself if you'd like. Let's scroll down a Speaker 0: little bit. Okay. History of post election audits, goals and objectives, risk limiting audit process, challenges in implementing RLA, the Arapahoe County RLA pilot project. Now you'd think someone that wrote this probably or took part in this probably knows a lot about cast vote records and about risk limiting audits. In fact, I'll just say if someone was going to design a risk limiting audit that would not catch certain types of manipulation, you might wanna study it a lot, maybe even write some papers, maybe even get paid with research grants. Just saying. There's some history there, but I'm gonna scroll down to page 11. We're not gonna go through this whole thing. You definitely are free to read this. I'll put it on that same Shine a Light site here, but I want you to see this right here. Let's talk about the timeline. And notice Clear Ballot Group. Pay attention to the names. CLEAR Ballot Group provided training to Arapahoe County Staff in 02/2013. And then October, Arapahoe County staff began scanning ballots. So it looks like they're examining a lot of things about, the ballots there. The risk limiting audit participants selected contests to be audited, and then they conducted an audit. Looks like another one. And look at the participants. Let's scroll this. Well, look. Take a look at this. I highlighted them for you. Matt Crane. That name sounds familiar. Right? Wayne Munster. Corinne Hennage. Sounds familiar. Right? That's Corinne. She actually took part in this. Jim Dunst, an election specialist. Tim Halverson, and Anna Quaveido of Clear Ballot Group. I mean, I got some questions for Clear Ballot Group now, actually. Colorado secretary of state, Christy Coburn. Danny Casias. I'm gonna say that one again because you really need to take a look at Danny Casias. Hey, Danny. You didn't think you're gonna get away with it, did you? Jerome Lovato as well. And then look at the consultants. Now this is an interesting one. Doctor Philip Stark. I've seen that name in a few places. You should look into that. And Neil McBurnett. Alright. Speaking of Jim Dunst, here's another interesting little tidbit I found. Here's an email from Jim to the Secretary of State Rule Making Committee and cc'd Karine in 02/2018. And look what he asks. We would like to ask for consideration and perhaps include in rule twenty point nine point one the following option. When storing voting equipment, allow the county to have the option of storing each device in a sealed container instead of sealing every data port on each device. We believe this would accomplish the same goal as having multiple seals on each device. Jim, how stupid do you think people are? So what Jim is saying is, instead of covering up all the data ports on all these voting systems to protect them from potential manipulation that he thinks it accomplishes the same goal as just storing them in a sealed container, the whole device. What could happen with that? Maybe someone just opens that container and then has direct access to all those ports. That'd be a really convenient way for a bad actor to manipulate elections. So, Jim, if you don't have your head completely up your ass and you actually wanted to secure elections better, what you would have said is something like, hey, I see that we're covering all the ports on these devices, but wouldn't it also be a good idea to put the entire device in a sealed container in addition? But instead, Jim, you want to suggest they don't cover all the ports and just put the whole device in a single sealed container. I mean, either are you stupid or you trying to create an abuse vector for the elections? I'd like to know which of the two it is. Speaker 1: So here Speaker 0: are the people you guys need to follow if you're not following already. Ed Sullivan, myself, Sean Smith, Draza Smith, not related, Jeff O'Donnell, who's known as the lone raccoon, and mad liberals. Follow these accounts because there's more to come. In fact, I'm gonna bring you I'm gonna bring you more to come over the next days, And there's a big bombshell coming on Tuesday. And I'd like to say, in somewhat closing, if all you bad guys out there really thought you were gonna get away with this, if you really thought you were gonna steal counties, a state, multiple states, Speaker 1: or our entire country on our watch, Speaker 0: sorry, but not gonna happen. You're all gonna get caught. You are all going down, and I'll make this suggestion to you. Since you are all going to get caught and go down for this, if any of you would like to try to save yourself, I will make a commitment to you. If you contact me, I don't care who you are. If you contact me Speaker 1: and apologize, repent, and expose the rest of the people that did this, I will go to bat for you. I will do my best to protect you. Speaker 0: But if you choose not to, I will make sure the hammer is brought down so hard you won't have an idea what hit you. So in closing, if anyone would like to follow me on hand count Speaker 1: roadshow, let me Speaker 0: show you where that is. Handcountroadshow.org is kind of my effort at trying to bring truth and understanding and knowledge across the country to help the people reclaim their elections because our elections do belong to us. They do not belong to corporations, and they do not belong to the criminals that have been manipulating our elections for decades. So if you wanna follow me on my website as well, please do handcountroadshow.org. You can keep an eye on everywhere I'm going and everywhere I've been over the past couple years. And right now, what I want you to do if you haven't done this yet, I want you to go to get educated, click on must watch, Speaker 1: and then right here, let's see here. Vote scam. Click on vote scam. And I want you to watch this video. This video Speaker 0: is probably the most pivotal video you could watch in 02/2025. I want you to show this video to every single person you know, especially every election official you know, because we need a whole lot of truth. We need restoration of our beautiful country, and the only way to do that is to restore our elections back to the people. So God bless y'all. Even God bless the criminals, that have done all this because, you're gonna need Speaker 1: it. See you soon.

@PatriotMarkCook — Mark Cook

Posted - November 21, 2024 at 5:01 PM

Saved - December 11, 2024 at 3:48 PM

reSee.it AI Summary

I'm going public to address @Jim_Jordan about a document handed to him on May 13, 2024. We just lost more votes, and this could have been prevented. I urge everyone to read this to understand our current struggles and the urgent need for reform. We must return elections to the people; otherwise, our perceived freedom is just an illusion. If citizens regain control and oversight of their elections, we can save our country. We have one chance to get this right, starting in 2025.

@PatriotMarkCook - Mark Cook

‼️OK, I'm going public ‼️ @Jim_Jordan, this was handed to you on 2024-05-13. Can you please let us know if you took the time to read it? We just hemorrhaged votes YET AGAIN and it all could have been avoided. If anyone else is curious, I suggest you read through this so you can understand what we have been and are living through right now, and why it is so critical that all this is fixed immediately. We MUST return our Elections to The People, or the freedom we think we have will forever be just the illusion. If the citizens of this country REGAIN control, oversight, and verifiability of THEIR elections, we can save this Country. If we don't, we will not get another opportunity. God gave us this gift. We have ONE SHOT at getting it right, and our one opportunity is right now starting in 2025. https://handcountroadshow.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/2024-05-13-Engineered-Theft-of-a-Superpower.pdf

Page not found – Hand Count Road Show handcountroadshow.org

@PatriotMarkCook — Mark Cook

Posted - October 30, 2024 at 2:48 AM

Saved - October 30, 2024 at 4:42 AM

reSee.it AI Summary

I’m asking Jena for help with math because she and others falsely imprisoned Tina, a Gold Star Mother, for 9 years over election equipment claims. Meanwhile, Jena posted 600 passwords for Colorado's election on her website for months and tried to cover it up before a National Election. So, how many years will she face?

@PatriotMarkCook - Mark Cook

Jena, help me with this math here...You and others lied and put Tina, a GOLD STAR MOTHER in prison for 9 years for allegedly compromising her county's election equipment (even though she didn't). Now you actually DID post 600 passwords for the entire state of Colorado on your own website FOR MONTHS, then tried to hide it one week prior to a National Election. So....HOW MANY YEARS ARE YOU GOING AWAY FOR?