reSee.it - Related Post Feed
reSee.it AI Summary
A thread shares clips from a conference discussing alleged rigging in the 2016 election. The author suggests that the experts involved may have influenced the 2020 election as well. Another post criticizes Hillary Clinton for denying election results and promoting conspiracy theories.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
Thread with clips from a conference on how the 2016 election was rigged. How would you hack a presidential election? I’m guessing these partisan election experts had a hand in the 2020 election because they disappeared afterwards, but they will soon be back. https://t.co/pDHfioOBV8
Video Transcript AI Summary
To hack a US presidential election, the speaker suggests a four-step plan. First, use pre-election polls to identify closely contested states. Second, target large counties or their service providers and compromise their election management system computers. Third, infect individual voting machines using the compromised system. This can be done easily by purchasing a government surplus machine on Ebay. Finally, manipulate the votes on the computer, knowing that most states discard the paper ballots without checking them.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: How would you actually hack a US presidential election? Well, step 1, before the election, use pre election polls like Nate Silver provides to identify the states that are likely to be closest, that are going to be within a percent or so. Step 2, target some large counties or their service providers and compromise their election management system computers. I'll leave it as an exercise to the attacker to find out, how to compromise the election management system by, say, starting by emailing Sue. Step 3, use the compromised election management system to spread your infection to the individual voting machines.
Developing an attack for one of these machines is not terribly difficult. I and others have done it again and again in the laboratory. All you need to do is buy 1 government surplus on Ebay to test it out. Finally, step 4, you're a tax steals votes on the computer, but no one ever looks at the paper because as we'll show you, most states just throw away that paper without ever looking at it.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
By December 13, 2016, if there was fraud, it had to be exposed by this date in order to have any hope of changing the outcome of the election. Hillary Clinton. Election denier and conspiracy theorist. https://t.co/ZAna9mQC0s
Video Transcript AI Summary
In 2016, it was known that hacking could occur during the presidential election. The election results were surprisingly close compared to the polls, indicating possible interference. However, no US states examined enough paper ballots to determine if the computers were hacked. This revealed a significant gap in our system. With a deadline approaching for states to finalize their electoral college votes, there was a need to expose any fraud that may have occurred. Election integrity advocates struggled to find a solution to ensure the examination of physical evidence that could detect cyber attacks.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So coming back to 2016 and the presidential election, we knew on November on November 8th, excuse me, not December 8th, on November 8th, on Election Day, that hacking was possible, and at the end of the day when the election results came in, we saw that the result was extremely close, was surprising compared to the polling. We knew at that point that there had been cyberattacks of an unprecedented nature in American politics aimed previously at interfering with the election. This was all before Election Day, and we knew that it was feasible for an attacker to change votes on enough machines to have stolen the election result. Shockingly, at least shockingly to me and many other people, even under these circumstances, approximately 0 US states we're going to look at enough paper ballots to know whether the computers had been hacked. This is a major gap in our system.
I previously had believed that the paper would provide a fairly strong deterrent, but if even in 2016 we're not going to look at any of the paper, well, it might as well not be there. So at this point, there were 5 weeks between Election Day on November 8th and December 13th, which is a deadline under federal law for states to lock in their electoral college votes, if there was no, if there was fraud that had taken place, it had to be exposed by this date in order to have any hope of changing the outcome of the election. So what to do under these circumstances? I and other election integrity advocates got together and started discussing some possibilities, but we didn't really have a good solution. Was there any way possible to make the states actually examine the physical evidence they had in a way that could potentially detect a cyber attack.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
We had a call with the top people at Hilary’s campaign including John Podesta. The Clinton campaign wanted to know what evidence we had of fraud but that’s not how to look at it. The purpose of a recount is to gather evidence that the outcome was correct or not. https://t.co/k5nDSxvh1b
Video Transcript AI Summary
On the Sunday after the election, the speaker received an urgent email from an election integrity advocate, inviting them to join a phone call with the Clinton campaign. Although Hillary Clinton was not present, her campaign manager and other top officials were. They discussed the possibility of requesting a recount in key states. The campaign had concerns about the evidence of hacking, the cost of the recount, and the potential backlash from retracting their concession to Donald Trump. The speaker found it frustrating that the campaign wanted evidence of hacking before considering a recount, as the purpose of a recount is to gather evidence.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Actually examine the physical evidence they had in a way that could potentially detect a cyber attack. So the first question, and really the beginning of this whole process for me, was on 13th, on the Sunday after election day. I was on a flight from New York to Los Angeles when I got a frantic email from Barbara Simons, another election integrity advocate. The email said, can you join a phone call in 15 minutes? It's with the Clinton campaign.
Hillary herself might be on the call. Well, what do I do? I'm on a flight, so I find a way to work around the airplane Wi Fi's attempts to block Skype and so forth, and find a way to dial into the call. It doesn't work well enough for me to talk on this 1st call, but I can listen in, and I can hear what they're saying. Clinton herself isn't there, But Podesta, her campaign manager, and many other top people from the campaign are on, and they're listening very, very carefully as Barbara and others are describing arguments why Clinton should recount should request a recount in several key states.
So candidates under American law have this ability. They can demand a recount, depending on the state, as long as they pay the requisite costs, but would Clinton do it? So there were a few concerns that the campaign brought up. The first one and the most aggravating to me is they wanted to know what evidence we had that the election had been hacked. Well, wait a minute.
That seems completely backwards. The purpose of a recount of any examination of the paper ballots is to gather evidence that the outcome was correct or not. Without looking at them, we don't have the evidence to begin with. All we can do is say that it would be possible for an attack to have changed the result without leaving any visible evidence. Another concern was how to pay for the recounts.
The cost was likely to rise to the 1,000,000 of dollars, But maybe most important and most aggravating was they were concerned about backpedaling from the concession about tiptoeing away from having conceded the victory to Donald Trump.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
Hillary was concerned about backpedaling about not accepting the results of the election. It could be a political problem. https://t.co/TIbDQPMm9q
Video Transcript AI Summary
The concern was that backpedaling from conceding the victory to Donald Trump would be seen as a threat to democracy. During the 2016 presidential debate, Trump's refusal to say he would accept the election results was considered horrifying by Clinton. There were two possible interpretations: either he wouldn't accept the result when settled, or he wanted to examine the evidence to ensure it wasn't rigged. Clinton took a firm stance that not accepting the election result immediately was a threat to democracy, so any deviation from that would have been a political problem.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: But maybe most important and most aggravating was they were concerned about backpedaling from the concession, about tiptoeing away from having conceded the victory to Donald Trump. And for Clinton in 2016, this was a particular concern because there was this famous incident during the 3rd presidential debate where Trump refused to say, yes, he would accept the election results. And Clinton reacted to this by saying that's something truly horrifying. It's a direct threat to our democracy. Well, there are 2 things he could have meant.
Right? One was he wouldn't accept the result when settled, right, that he he wouldn't concede power to the victor. That is truly horrifying. But the other, which is kind of a rational thing, is, well, I don't want to accept the results until all the evidence is examined to make sure it wasn't rigged. Well, she was committed to a position that not accepting the election result immediately was a threat to democracy.
And so any kind of tiptoeing away from that would have been a political problem.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
Jill Stein raised over $5 million dollars for the recount that Hillary’s team wanted. Seems like a campaign violation. Also, it’s absolutely incredible how many people care passionately about the integrity of our elections. That’s exactly what we election deniers say. https://t.co/P6666N8IpF
Video Transcript AI Summary
In this video, the speaker discusses the importance of the recounts in the election and the evidence they provide. They mention that a crowdfunding campaign led by Jill Stein and the Green Party raised over $5,000,000 in just two days for the recounts. This amount exceeded the money raised for Stein's entire presidential campaign and involved 160,000 individual donors. The speaker emphasizes the significant number of people who are passionate about the integrity of elections. The video concludes by stating that now that they have the funds and a candidate, they are ready to proceed with the recounts.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Fortunately, this narrative of is there some kind of secret evidence or not has been very difficult to get around, but I think we're doing our best. And in this talk, we'll show you why the recounts were essential and what evidence the recounts are able to provide vis a vis the election result. So what happened next? On 23rd, the day before Thanksgiving, the same day my Medium post went live, Jill Stein announced that she was going to lead an effort to recount 3 critical states. In just 2 days, A crowdfunding campaign that Jill and the Green Party led raised more than $5,000,000 for the recounts.
That's more money than she raised for her entire presidential campaign. A 160,000 individual donors. It's absolutely incredible how many people care passionately about the integrity of our elections. The next question, now we have the money. We have a candidate.
We're to recount
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
We picked three states to target to recount, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. In PA we had to sway or pay 27,000 people in order to get a recount. Seems illegal. https://t.co/gzvgARdcE8
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker discusses the importance of three key states in the US election: Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. These states had a combined total of 46 electoral votes and played a crucial role in determining the outcome of the election. In Wisconsin, the margin was around 23,000 votes, and candidates could request a recount. Michigan had a smaller margin of about 11,000 votes, and candidates could pay a fee to request a recount in specific precincts. Pennsylvania had a larger margin of 44,000 votes, but the state predominantly used paperless voting machines, making the recount process more complicated. In Pennsylvania, three citizens from each precinct wanting a recount had to post a bond and swear to fraud.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Projected to be won by Clinton. All 3 of them are won by Trump. They combined for 46, electoral votes. The electoral margin was 37 votes, I believe. All 3 had margins less than, 8 tenths of a percent.
And in total, the US election was possibly decided by the 78,000 votes in these 3 states, the 78,000, margin. And moreover, we had to find states where we could actually do something. Michigan and Wisconsin allowed candidates to petition for recounts. Pennsylvania requires a court order, but we thought our chances were pretty good. So in Wisconsin, to to start us off, the margin was, just under 23,000 votes.
That's about 0.7 0.8%. The technology there is almost entirely OPSAN, and every ballot that is cast in Wisconsin has a paper record. And as I mentioned, the law any candidate can demand a recount if he or she can pay the cost. And each county in Wisconsin decides how to do the recount. You can you can recount all the votes by hand counting all the paper, or you could just run the ballots back through a machine.
And so in Wisconsin, that decision is left up to the counties. In Michigan, the margin was much smaller. It's about 11,000 votes, 0.23%. And by the way, Michigan is also where we live, so it was sort of convenient. Can.
And, again, all votes use paper. And, the law states that any aggrieved candidate can file, can pay a statutory fee in every in however many precincts he or she wants to get a recount. And then the state board of canvassers, which is the state committee that kinda decides, that runs elections, decides how the recount will be done. And finally, in Pennsylvania, the margin was a bit bigger, 44,000 votes. Unfortunately, in Pennsylvania, they predominantly use paperless DREs.
So, 70% of their their votes are cast without any kind of paper record or backup at all. And the law there is very, very complicated. It says that, 3 citizens from every precinct that wants to be recounted must, post a bond, swear that there is fraud, and, you know, that's how you have to get a recount done in Pennsylvania. And, bear in mind, there are Tens of thousands of precincts in Pennsylvania. Not tens of thousands.
There are 9,000 or so precincts in Pennsylvania. So that's 27,000 people we need to to swear and pay
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
1. Election security experts told Hillary she lost. 2. Obama is an election denier who ordered a congressional investigation of 2016. 3. National security told Hillary the election was hacked. The same people who yelled the most secure election in history in 2020. https://t.co/OpdbRJGPql
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker states that the recounts support the correct election outcome, providing assurance that Donald Trump won without doubt. While there is no strong evidence of fraud or cyberattacks, the incomplete counts make verification imperfect. President Obama ordered an investigation into hacking before leaving office, with intelligence agencies agreeing that hacking likely influenced the outcome. Although the speaker can sleep at night, they cannot completely rule out fraud. Another speaker mentions that the recounts further confirm that the election was not hacked, increasing confidence in the election. However, they also discovered that hacking a US presidential election would be even easier than initially believed.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The recounts support that the, election outcome was correct. That that, you know, we we can I I can sleep at night knowing that Donald Trump won the election and having no doubt? There is not strong evidence that there wasn't fraud or that there wasn't a cyberattack, though, counts were incomplete because there's sort of an imperfect way to do this, you know, to verify. So, Yeah. Like we said, cyberattacks already happened before.
We did get a a, congressional investigation out of this. President Obama has ordered an investigation before he leaves Office. And, you know, we got intelligence agencies to agree that, you know, there was hacking that did happen that probably influenced the outcome. But overall, I we can sleep at night, but we can't completely rule out fraud.
Speaker 1: So the recounts didn't complete. What I thought at the beginning, as I said in my medium piece, was that, well, the election probably wasn't hacked. What do we learn from the recounts? Well, we learned that It even more probably wasn't hacked. We get additional basis for confidence in the election.
But at the same time, along the way, we found that hacking an election in the US for president Would be well even easier than I thought when I began this process.
reSee.it AI Summary
In 2016, Democrats, Hollywood celebrities, and news outlets urged electors to vote against President-elect Donald Trump. Liberal activists like Chris Hayes, Laurence Tribe, and George Takei joined the call. Mark Ruffalo, Rosie O'Donnell, Neera Tanden, and Pink also urged electors to flip their votes. Chris Hayes and Michael Moore pushed for electors to block Trump's presidency. Michael Moore even pledged to cover electors' fines. Martin Sheen and Moby released a video urging electors to vote against Trump. Democrats have objected to certifying Electoral College wins in 2000, 2004, and 2016.
@KanekoaTheGreat - KanekoaTheGreat
THREAD: In 2016, Democrats, Hollywood celebrities, and corporate news outlets urged electors to vote against President-elect Donald Trump. Lawrence Lessig's article in The Washington Post on November 26, 2016, argued that Republican electors had the constitutional right and…
@KanekoaTheGreat - KanekoaTheGreat
Liberal activists like Chris Hayes, Norm Eisen, Laurence Tribe, and George Takei urged electors to vote against President-elect Donald Trump in 2016.
@KanekoaTheGreat - KanekoaTheGreat
Liberal activists like Mark Ruffalo, Rosie O'Donnell, Neera Tanden, and Pink urged electors to flip their votes from Donald Trump to Hillary Clinton in 2016.
@KanekoaTheGreat - KanekoaTheGreat
Chris Hayes and Michael Moore pushed for electors to block President-elect Donald Trump from becoming the president on MSNBC. "They think electors should be persuaded to part with their pledges and vote against Donald Trump." "Yes, they absolutely should do that."
Video Transcript AI Summary
Some people believe that electors should be persuaded to vote against Donald Trump due to concerns about the emoluments clause, the popular vote margin, and threats to liberal democracy. It is argued that electors who have a conscience or are worried about Trump's lack of attendance at daily security briefings, as well as Russia's alleged interference in the election, should vote against him. The speaker questions what would happen if Iran had been involved in helping someone else get elected and suggests that it would not be a favorable outcome.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I think there are people who are pushing very hard who think that, because of some of the constitutional perils of the emoluments clause, because of the popular vote margin, because of, fundamentals, they think, threat to liberal democracy, that the the that electors should be persuaded and pressured on Monday to to part with what their pledge is and vote and vote against Donald Trump?
Speaker 1: Yes. They absolutely should do that. Absolutely. I I believe right now that there are electors. They only need 38 of them who have a conscience or who are worried about a man who won't attend the daily security briefings, who, who we now know Russia was trying to help get elected.
I mean, can you imagine if this if you or I had been running for office and they they show that the Iranians we're somehow involved in helping you or me get elected. What would happen to you or me, Chris? I'm just curious. What would happen? I think it would be a totally chill
@KanekoaTheGreat - KanekoaTheGreat
In an open letter posted on his Facebook account, Michael Moore pledged to cover the fines of electors if they voted against President-elect Donald Trump. Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig extended an offer to provide free legal services.
@KanekoaTheGreat - KanekoaTheGreat
The Daily Beast: "It's not too late for electors to change history." Slate: "Will enough electors go rogue to stop Trump?" Vox: "Let conscientious electors do their jobs." Time: "Electors against Trump are faithful not faithless."
@KanekoaTheGreat - KanekoaTheGreat
Liberal celebrities like Martin Sheen and Moby released a video begging electors to be 'heroes' by voting against President-elect Donald Trump. "Our founding fathers built the Electoral College to safeguard the American people from the dangers of a demagogue," Sheen explained.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Republican members of the Electoral College, we urge you to vote your conscience on December 19th. The Electoral College was created to prevent an unfit candidate from becoming president. You, along with 36 other conscientious Republican electors, can make a difference. We're not asking you to vote for Hillary Clinton, but for any eligible person you consider especially competent. By doing so, you can give the House of Representatives the option to select a qualified candidate. We stand with you in support and solidarity with conservatives, independents, and liberals. The American people trust that your voice speaks for us all. You have the opportunity to go down in history as an American hero who changed the course of our nation. Unite for America.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Republican members of the Electoral College, this message is for you. As you know, our founding fathers built the Electoral College to safeguard the American people from the dangers of a demagogue and to ensure that the presidency only goes to someone who is, to an imminent degree, endowed with the requisite qualifications.
Speaker 1: An eminent degree. Someone who is highly qualified for the job.
Speaker 0: The electoral college was created specifically to prevent An unfit candidate from becoming president. There are 538 members of the electoral college. You
Speaker 2: And just 36 other conscientious Republican electors can make a difference.
Speaker 3: By voting your conscience on December 19th.
Speaker 4: And thereby shaping the future of our nation.
Speaker 3: I'm not asking you to vote for Hillary Clinton.
Speaker 0: I'm not asking you to vote for Hillary Clinton. I'm not asking you to vote for Hillary Clinton.
Speaker 4: As you know, the constitution gives electors the right to vote for any eligible person.
Speaker 0: Any eligible person, no matter which party they belong to.
Speaker 1: But it should certainly be someone you consider especially competent
Speaker 3: Especially competent to serve as president of the United States of America.
Speaker 2: By voting your conscience, you and other brave Republican electors can give the house of representatives the option to select a qualified candidate For the presidency. I stand with you.
Speaker 0: I stand with you. I stand with you.
Speaker 4: I stand with you in support and solidarity with conservatives, its independence, and liberals.
Speaker 3: And all citizens of the United States.
Speaker 0: The American people trust that your voice speaks for us all.
Speaker 3: And that you you will make yourself heard through the constitutional responsibility granted to you by Alexander Hamilton himself.
Speaker 4: What is evident is that Donald Trump lacks more than the qualifications to be president.
Speaker 1: He lacks the necessary stability.
Speaker 0: And clearly the respect for the constitution of our great nation. You have position The authority and the opportunity to go down in the books as an American hero.
Speaker 2: Who changed the course of history.
Speaker 4: And you have my respect. You have my respect.
Speaker 2: You have my respect.
Speaker 3: For your patriotism. And service
Speaker 0: to the American people. Unite for America.
@KanekoaTheGreat - KanekoaTheGreat
Democrats have objected to certifying Electoral College wins for the presidential contests of 2000, 2004, and 2016. In 2004, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) joined Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-Ohio) in objecting to President Bush’s electoral win in Ohio, noting issues and…
Video Transcript AI Summary
Four years ago, there were concerns about uncounted votes in Illinois. The senator from New York commended the senator from California for raising objections and allowing the discussion of these issues. A computing error in Franklin County awarded extra votes to George Bush, raising questions about the accuracy and integrity of the election system. These issues were not limited to Ohio, as other states also faced similar situations. The legitimacy of our elections is being challenged, which is concerning given our efforts to promote democracy worldwide. The objection raised in Ohio is just one example of the irregularities observed. The debate will continue thanks to the objection from California. The golden rule in politics is emphasized, regardless of the election outcome.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I was not in this body 4 years ago, but what I observed, as a boater, as a citizen of Illinois, 4 years ago were troubling evidence of the fact that not every vote was being counted. Senator from New York.
Speaker 1: Mister president, this is obviously a difficult debate for many reasons, but I commend The senator from California, for joining with members of the house, most particularly congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones, in raising the objection because it does permit us to air some of these issues.
Speaker 2: Why did a computing error And Franklin County initially award 4,258 extra votes to George Bush when only 638 people Had actually voted. Thankfully, they fixed it. But how many other votes did the computers Get on.
Speaker 0: Too many voters to cast votes on machines to jam or malfunction or suck the votes without a trace.
Speaker 1: As we look at our election system, I think it's fair to say that there are many legitimate questions about its accuracy, about its integrity, and they're not confined to the state of Ohio
Speaker 2: because of these And many other examples, all documented in the press. I am joining With congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones to cast the light of truth on a flawed system.
Speaker 0: There is no reason at a time when we have enormous battles taking place ideologically all across the globe. At a time when we're trying to make certain that we encourage democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan and other places, throughout the world that we have the legitimacy of our elections challenged, rightly or wrongly, by people who are not certain as to whether our processes are fair and just.
Speaker 3: Ohio is the objection. I'm from Ohio. I'm raising the objection. But I anticipate you will also hear from some of my colleagues from other states who had similar situations. Now it's easy to say, well, it happened in Ohio.
It Happened in Michigan. It happened in Arizona. And so let's not worry about it because it happened everywhere.
Speaker 1: So I would hope that this body and thanks to the objection of my Friend from California, this debate, which has started today, will continue.
Speaker 3: But there are other things that are being presented that people are showing that I witnessed myself, that would say that that say to me that this the irregularities in Ohio Observe a hearing in the house of representatives.
Speaker 1: I would be standing here saying this no matter what the outcome of the election. Because I still think the best rule in politics is the golden rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
reSee.it AI Summary
Trump and Ricky Vaughn face the same charge of conspiracy against election rights. @theorangebeam claims 30,000 Michigan ballots were counted multiple times, suggesting fraud. They also allege that rescanning was used to steal Trump's lead.
@JackPosobiec - Jack Poso 🇺🇸
Trump got hit with the same charge as Ricky Vaughn - conspiracy against rights in an election Ricky was the test case
@theorangebeam - theorangebeam
@JackPosobiec Trump won, by a lot! She said at least 30,000 ballots in Michigan were counted multiple times. That's a lot of votes, and a lot of fraud! https://t.co/l7NFOVqWe1
Video Transcript AI Summary
Melissa Carone, a freelance IT worker contracted by Dominion Voting Systems, witnessed numerous city workers running batches of ballots through tabulators without discarding them first. The tabulating machines would jam frequently, and the correct process would be to remove the problem ballot and rescan the batch. However, instead of discarding the batch, they were rescanning it multiple times, resulting in counting the same ballots and votes 9 to 10 times. Carone estimated that at least 30,000 ballots were counted multiple times.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Sure. My name is Melissa Carone. I was contracted to work, for Dominion Voting Systems. I was, I'm a freelance IT worker. I was contracted to work for Dominion to assist with IT during the election.
Speaker 1: And when you were working there, what, what did you observe?
Speaker 0: I observed, numerous employees, city workers, running batches of ballots through the tabulators countless times without discarding them first. The tabulating machines would jam 2 to 3 times an hour. When they would jam the correct process would be to pull out the problem ballot that jammed, say the problem ballot was number 24 out of 50. We would I would I wasn't allowed to touch any hardware at all. I would assist them, tell them to pull out this ballot, put the problem ballot on top.
In Michigan, our ballots, from the tabulators don't just drop into ballot steal ballot boxes. They are now as they got tabulated they are now on top of the tabulating machine. Okay? So instead of them taking these. So say let's keep it number 25 is the problem ballot.
It got jammed. So the computer would throw an error. It would say ballot number 25. There there is an error. I would say pull out ballot number 25.
Slowly pull it out, put it on top, take the, the ballots that had already been tabulated, which are on top of the tabulating machine now, put them all back in a stack, discard the entire batch, and rescan it. Instead of discarding, they were just rescanning, rescanning, rescanning, counting ballots 9 to 10 times, counting votes 9 to 10 times.
Speaker 1: So they were counting the same ballot, the same vote 9 or 10 times?
Speaker 0: Yes, sir.
Speaker 1: So how many ballots would you estimate in front of you that you observed were counted multiple times in the machine? Can you put a number to it, an estimated number? At least Best people.
Speaker 0: At least 30,000.
Speaker 1: At least 30,000. Okay.
@theorangebeam - theorangebeam
@JackPosobiec More: She said that they were just rescanning, and rescanning, and rescanning. That's how much it took to steal President Donald Trump's legitimate lead. https://t.co/ZVa5nCRb6T
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker explains that when a ballot jams in the tabulating machines, an error message appears with the options to discard or recount. However, instead of following the correct procedure of discarding the entire batch and rescanning the already tabulated ones, they were repeatedly rescanning the jammed ballots without discarding them. This led to the ballots being counted 8 to 10 times, indicating a lack of understanding and confusion among the individuals involved.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Oh, I'm sorry. So the tabulating machines, when, a ballot jams, it puts up an error. It'll say discard or recount. So when it puts up that error, when a jam occurs, the correct way to go about it is to discard the whole batch, take the ones that have already been tabulated, put them back in a pile, put the one that jams on top, and then discard it. Discard the whole thing, and then rescan they were not discarding.
So they were just rescanning, rescanning, rescanning, counting ballots 8 to 10 times, just recounting them. They had absolutely no idea what they were doing.
@Travis_in_Flint - 🇺🇸Travis🇺🇸
When can we expect indictments for all of these people calling on electors to vote for Hillary after Trump won?
Video Transcript AI Summary
Just 36 Republican electors can make a difference by voting their conscience on December 19. The speaker is not asking them to vote for Hillary Clinton, but rather for any eligible person they consider competent to serve as president. The constitution grants electors the right to vote for any eligible person, regardless of party affiliation. This vote has the power to shape the future of our nation.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And just 36 other conscientious Republican electors can make a difference. By voting your conscience on December 19. And thereby shaping the future of our nation. I'm not asking you to vote for Hillary Clinton. I'm not asking you to vote for Hillary Clinton.
I'm not asking you to vote for Hillary Clinton. As you know, the constitution gives electors the right to vote for any eligible person. Any eligible person, no matter which party they belong to. But it should certainly be someone you consider especially competent Especially competent to serve as president of the United States of America.
@kylenabecker - Kyle Becker
When will Hillary Clinton be charged with "election interference"? https://t.co/lKS6ndsTIw
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Clinton plan intelligence referred to information received around the same time as the Australian intelligence. It suggested that one of Mrs. Clinton's foreign policy advisers had a plan to link Donald Trump to the Russians. On August 3, 2016, Director Brennan briefed President Obama, Vice President Biden, Director of National Intelligence, the FBI, and the Attorney General about this intelligence. Director Comey was present during the briefing. However, this information was not provided to the agents working on the case or to the secret FISA Court.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Jordan referenced the Clinton plan intelligence. Exactly what was the Clinton plan?
Speaker 1: Based on declassified documents in the in the public record, there was intelligence information that, was received, at virtually the same time that the information came from, from the Australians, I mean, within a day or two. That intelligence in included information that there was a, purported plan, designed by, one of missus Clinton's foreign policy advisers, to create a scandal tying Donald Trump, to the Russians. That's the essence of the intelligence as contained in the, declassified information.
Speaker 0: Did the president receive this intelligence?
Speaker 1: On August 3, 2016, then director Brennan had briefed the president, vice president, director of national intelligence, the FBI, the attorney general, and others.
Speaker 0: When you say the FBI, you mean mister Comey?
Speaker 1: They had on August 3rd, it was, conducted at the White House. It was director Comey himself.
Speaker 0: So mister Comey knew about this. President Obama knew about this. Vice President Biden knew about this. But, it wasn't provided to the agents, on the case or or provided to the secret FISA Court. Is that correct?
Speaker 1: That's correct.
reSee.it AI Summary
In a series of posts, the author discusses various instances of election denialism and attempts to overturn the 2016 election. They highlight how Hillary Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and Jill Stein questioned the legitimacy of the election and claimed interference by Russia. The author also mentions the efforts by Democrats to persuade electors to vote against their states' popular vote. Despite a Supreme Court ruling declaring such actions illegal, the "resistance" against President Trump continued throughout his administration.
@VDHanson - Victor Davis Hanson
Who Are the Real Insurrectionaries? Part Two Hillary Clinton was joined in her later efforts to deny the legitimacy of the 2016 election by a large chorus of elected House members, and ex-president Jimmy Carter. Carter in 2019 echoed her charges: “And there's no doubt that the Russians did interfere in the election. And I think the interference although not yet quantified, if fully investigated would show that Trump didn't actually win the election in 2016. He lost the election, and he was put into office because the Russians interfered on his behalf.” Here we have an ex-president election denialist accusing the then president of being a veritable traitor as well as an election rigger. We do not recall any outrage at the time. During the 2016 electoral-college process, third-party Green candidate Jill Stein, de facto acting as a DNC surrogate, claimed the 2016 ballot count was illegitimate. She thus sued in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin claiming the voting machines were rigged. (To my knowledge the companies involved like ExpressVote XL did not sue Stein, Dominion-Voting-Systems-style for $1 billion). Stein’s denialism arose mostly in reaction to the Clinton campaign that had loudly claimed “experts” found that Clinton tallies in those states did not meet her campaign’s pre-election expectations. At the same time, Democrats organized a media/publicity campaign— headed by about a dozen Hollywood “stars” appearing in nightly TV commercials —seeking to flip electors into “faithless” electors. In other words, they urged electors to violate their oaths, and not to reflect the uncontested majority votes of their states. Instead they were begged to vote for Hillary Clinton, who had lost their respective states’ popular vote. All this activism arose despite a July 2020 Supreme Court ruling clearly reaffirming the constitutionality of prior state laws that had declared faithless electors illegal. In other words, the Left organized a well-funded effort to overturn the 2016 election by creating faithless electors. They sought to deny the people’s majority votes in their states, and they continued despite a recent prior Supreme Court ruling that this ploy was patently illegal. Just four months after the Inauguration, Clinton boasted that she was part of the “Resistance”, a direct echo to the armed French armed effort —La Résistance—against the Nazi occupation. I suppose Hillary thought she was one of the heroic Democratic maquis and Trump of course Adolf Hitler. Leftwing fact-checkers bristle when such comparisons are made between the 2016 and 2020 election denialism. But the real difference between the two elections’ denialism was that the organized “resistance” to an “illegitimate” president who had “rigged” and “stolen” the 2016 vote continued throughout the Trump administration, often in illegal fashion. To be continued…
@damonimani - Damon Imani
I don't think Adam Schiff and Joy Reid appreciated my thoughts on the consequences of Trump remaining on the ballot: https://t.co/1IVf14pk3a
Video Transcript AI Summary
If the court rules that someone who incited an insurrection to stay in office can remain on the ballot, what consequences will our country face? What if they decide he can stage a coup and then run again?
The consequences will be that the voice of the people will be heard, and they get to choose their president. Also, on election night, when he wins, people will get to watch certain individuals cry on air.
Thank you for your time.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What do you think would be the consequences for our country if this court rules that somebody who egged on an insurrection that was an insurrection for him to remain in office remains on the ballot? If they rule that he can stage a coup and then run again, what do you think the consequences of that will be?
Speaker 1: Well, the consequences will be that firstly, of course, the voice of the people will be heard and they get to choose their president. And secondly, on the night of election, if or probably when he wins, people will get to watch you and lying chef here cry life on air like the little bitches you are.
Speaker 0: Congressman Adam Schiff, thank you for your time. Much appreciate it.
@ICU1010 - Eddie
@HillaryClinton Here are 20+ minutes of Democrats denying and questioning election results. Hillary Clinton, Obama, Biden, et al., with many calling President Trump illegitimate. The 2020 election was rigged, and Biden is illegitimate!! https://t.co/wu8Bt5WVgO
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speakers in the video discuss their belief that various elections, including the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections, were stolen or illegitimate due to factors such as Russian interference, voter suppression, and faulty voting machines. They express concerns about the integrity of the electoral process and call for reforms to ensure fair elections. The video also mentions specific instances, such as the 2000 presidential election and the Georgia gubernatorial race, where the speakers believe the election results were not accurate. Overall, the speakers emphasize the need for transparency and accountability in elections to protect democracy.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You can run the best campaign. You can even become the nominee, and you can have the election stolen from you.
Speaker 1: How can you win with Russian interference, though?
Speaker 2: That's what real scared about it in 2020. But rightly.
Speaker 1: Because I'm thinking illegitimate president that didn't really win. So how do you, you know, fight against that in 2020?
Speaker 2: You are absolutely right.
Speaker 0: He is an illegitimate president in my mind
Speaker 3: Could you be my vice president to a candidate?
Speaker 4: Folks, look. I absolutely agree.
Speaker 5: Trump didn't actually win the election in 2 16. He lost the election, and he was put in the office because the Russians interfered.
Speaker 6: Russia interfered with our election, attacked our democracy for the sole purpose of artificially placing someone at 1600 Pennsylvania knew they were successful.
Speaker 0: Trump knows he's an illegitimate president.
Speaker 7: The president or elect, although legally elected, is not legitimate.
Speaker 8: I don't see
Speaker 9: this. President-elect as a legitimate president. You said you believe that Russia's interference altered the outcome of the auction.
Speaker 2: I do. We have a president who, if in fact, it is proven, has been assisted by the Russians and may in fact not be a legitimate president.
Speaker 0: The one thing that Trump It's fearful of, when it comes to his being president, is that finally, we will see how illegitimate his victory actually Was.
Speaker 10: I have an objection.
Speaker 11: I object to the 15 votes from the state of North Carolina.
Speaker 12: I object because people are horrified.
Speaker 0: He's an illegitimate president.
Speaker 13: Our election was hijacked. There is no question. Congress has a duty to hashtag protect our democracy and hashtag follow the facts.
Speaker 6: John Lewis is completely right. There is a cloud out of illegitimacy around the election of Donald Trump. The Russians interfered with his election. James Comey and the FBI interfered with his, election. The fake news industry interfered with his election.
Speaker 0: Trump knows he's an illegitimate president who got illegitimate foreign powers.
Speaker 2: Do you believe Trump is illegitimate president?
Speaker 14: What I believe is that there's no question that the outcome of this election was affected by the Russian interference.
Speaker 15: There absolutely is a cloud of illegitimacy.
Speaker 16: So that legitimacy is in question. Yes.
Speaker 7: So that was a very tainted election. And and in that sense, it's it's illegitimate.
Speaker 2: Why do you think the president is going to such great lengths to prove that he beat you.
Speaker 0: Because he knows he didn't. He knows he's an illegitimate president.
Speaker 13: Stolen emails. Stolen drone. Stolen drone. Own an election. Welcome to the world of unprecedented Trump.
Speaker 9: Did you believe president Trump is an illegitimate president?
Speaker 5: Based on what I just said, which I can't retract.
Speaker 13: Okay. He tweeted in Tory, 2018, quote, the more we learn about the 2016 election, the more illegitimate it becomes. America deserves to know whether we have a fake president in the Oval Office.
Speaker 7: In the Russian attempt to to have the election. And, frankly, the FBI is weighing in on the election. I think make the make it Makes this election illegitimate.
Speaker 0: There was a widespread understanding that this election was not on the level. We still don't know what really happened, Isaac. I mean, there's just a lot that I think will be revealed. History will discover. But you don't win by 3,000,000 votes and have all this other shenanigans stuff going on and not come away with an idea like, woah.
Something's not right here.
Speaker 6: Seems to me that there's a cloud of illegitimacy that continues to hang over 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Speaker 14: The outcome of the election was affected by their interference. And now we need to know, you know, to what degree, if any, the campaign was actually in collusion with the with with Russia.
Speaker 0: He knows he's an illegitimate president. So, of course, he's obsessed with me, and I believe that it's a guilty conscience.
Speaker 4: We actually won the last presidential election, folks. They stole my presidential election.
Speaker 3: If Al Gore won that election, think he won anyway.
Speaker 4: Actually, I think I carried Florida.
Speaker 5: Al Gore won the election nationwide and also in Florida, but the supreme court ruled the other way. Al Gore got more votes, but not enough to stay out of the Supreme Court where president Bush was elected 5 to 4.
Speaker 0: Bush versus Gore. A court took away A presidency.
Speaker 17: If all the votes were carried in Florida, that Al Gore would be president today and George Bush would be backing off.
Speaker 2: I come from Florida Where you and others participated in what I call the United States coup d'etat.
Speaker 13: It's in 2013, according to reports, vice president Joe Biden, he claimed that Al Gore was the one who was elected president, and he claimed that the recount result was, quote, a bad decision.
Speaker 4: And never forget, dear friends, what they did in Florida to Al Gore and me, to all of us, the older Americans, the African Americans, the Haitian Americans denied the right to vote and have those votes counted.
Speaker 18: I do believe that the projections were right in the first place at 7 o'clock when they called it Boy.
Speaker 2: Let me tell you something without a doubt. George Bush did not carry Florida, and it was not closed.
Speaker 8: There's no question You won the state of Florida.
Speaker 4: Oh, thank you, darling. No. That's a question.
Speaker 17: That's a question.
Speaker 4: We will never know because votes weren't weren't counted. But by And
Speaker 13: and then in your judgment
Speaker 4: I mean, that's unfortunate. Yeah. And there is no other way of saying it, but to be very blunt, Al Gore won the state of Florida in 2000, and we should never forget it.
Speaker 19: Most Americans are great. Many Americans don't have confidence that the election of 2000 was fair.
Speaker 18: But I don't believe we lost. I I believe we just failed to have all of the votes counted. The Coach counted The
Speaker 14: Supreme Court elected president of 2004. Yeah. Al Gore won the state of Florida in 2000, although not the presidency.
Speaker 20: We know we won this election. They know we won on this election, and Americans know we won this election.
Speaker 18: I know some people want you to believe that the Gore campaign was a campaign that wasn't able to complete its mission. We did. Had all of those votes been found in Florida, I think Al Gore would be president today.
Speaker 21: We had more votes. We won, and we are never Going to let the United States Supreme Court choose the president of the United States again.
Speaker 14: You should
Speaker 12: know by now based the fact that he lost the popular vote vote by more than a half 1000000 voters, and we don't know how many he lost by in Florida.
Speaker 5: There's no doubt in my mind that Al Gore was elected president.
Speaker 12: I rise to object to the fraudulent 25 Florida electoral Folks.
Speaker 17: Really, we won the election in 2000, but they stole the election.
Speaker 4: I must object because of the overwhelming evidence of official misconduct, Delivery fraud and an attempt to The chairman must remain on. Enron had already helped the Bush team with such favors as ferrying their rent a mob to Florida in 2000 to permanently halt the counting of legally cast ballots.
Speaker 11: It is signed by myself behalf of my diverse constituents and the millions of Americans who have been disenfranchised by Florida's inaccurate vote count to The court, not
Speaker 16: the week
Speaker 12: with the United States, the Friday of this election.
Speaker 2: Speaking to a Democratic
Speaker 22: group in Chicago Tuesday, he
Speaker 2: made it clear He thinks Al Gore was the winner.
Speaker 16: By the time it was over,
Speaker 5: our candidate had won the popular vote, and the only way they could win the election was to stop The voting in Florida.
Speaker 17: Catherine Harris, Jeb Bush, Jim Baker, and the Supreme Court hadn't tampered
Speaker 4: with the results. Al Gore would be president.
Speaker 23: I think that the issue before us today, is Not who won or should have won the 2000 presidential election. That issue has been settled, not to my belief, but it has been settled.
Speaker 13: Let's just drop the vice. President, presidentor. That's all I got.
Speaker 9: Al Gore should
Speaker 13: have been president of the United States.
Speaker 24: Al Gore, made it possible for George Bush to be the only appointed president in the history of these United States.
Speaker 13: Democrats have won the past 3 presidential elections.
Speaker 19: In 2000, unions turned out 25% of the vote, and Al Gore won.
Speaker 17: But the Supreme Court hampered? That's a large start. The Supreme Court stopped the counting of the votes, and if they'd let the council on, El Gore would have got the necessary vote.
Speaker 2: The Supreme Court selected George w Bush as the president. He was not elected.
Speaker 12: There is overwhelming But it said Joyce w Bush did not win this election.
Speaker 25: What I observed, as a voter, as a citizen of Illinois, 4 years ago were troubling evidence of the fact that not every vote was being counted.
Speaker 5: Don't think that George w Bush won the election, in 2000, I guess, our goal because I I think that he probably lost Florida and also that nationwide.
Speaker 17: If you invite me back on this show in about 8 weeks, I think you're gonna learn that El Goran actually did get all the votes there.
Speaker 26: I felt what happened in Florida was a carefully worked out conspiracy. That many things could not go wrong in 1 one state without there having been a conspiracy, and many, many different things did go wrong. Many Tricks were full of various kinds.
Speaker 18: The vice president did win, but, and I do believe that the majority of voters that intended to to go to Polls last year wanted to vote and cast their votes for Al Gore. I do believe that in in in terms of Florida as well.
Speaker 19: The has been
Speaker 10: thwarting formation of the popular will. The most spectacular example being Bush versus Gore, where the majority by a 5 four vote and joined the counting of more than a 100,000 ballots in Florida and essentially gave America its first court appointed president.
Speaker 13: And stolen.
Speaker 27: Even though Al Gore won the election, he won't take office.
Speaker 25: That election was stolen from the rightful winner. So, mister speaker, I'm here today to talk about a stolen presidential election.
Speaker 17: I think in 2000, everybody So, well, he did win the election out of court.
Speaker 15: He started dividing America here in Florida By trying to take an election that I think any reasonable person would say he hadn't actually won.
Speaker 2: What happened in Florida will go down in history as a coup d'etat.
Speaker 16: Did we conclude, is it possible that There was a conspiracy, and Florida officials were involved in the conspiracy. Never have so many things gone so wrong one place before. Why how do all these things happen all at the same time in the same state? It's not possible there was a conspiracy. It was very well organized.
Why were the state police out there on that day, election day, taking license plates, And and so forth. You know, how did all these things happen in one state at one time in one election? Is is it possible that we are Use the word conspiracy and not be afraid of it. Not sure wish, Gore was president right now. He should be.
Speaker 17: Well, yes, he got elected.
Speaker 16: Oh, well, good.
Speaker 28: A battle that by the will of the people should have ended in victory. But tens of thousands of Florida votes either were not counted or tossed out in the 2000 presidential election.
Speaker 17: 5 supreme court justices, This is Trump the votes of 51,000,000 Americans. We should've let the entire state be recounted so it was clear, that Al Gore actually won the state
Speaker 2: And won the election.
Speaker 23: We had the election stolen from us, and you must admit that. They stole it, and we need a leader to help us get revenge.
Speaker 13: I voted for Al Gore. He won the election.
Speaker 26: They usurped the The powers of the forest being caught and and and intervene, it was a fix as far as we're concerned. You know? It it there's no polite way to talk about it except the fix was in.
Speaker 2: After the when you stole the election, you came back here and say, get over it. No. We're not going to get over it.
Speaker 4: You know it. I know know it. They know it. We won that election.
Speaker 22: Constantly shifting vote tallies in Ohio and now functioning electronic machines, which may not have paper receipts, have led to additional loss of confidence by the public.
Speaker 6: The right to vote
Speaker 4: has been stolen from qualified voters.
Speaker 13: The New Yorker reported that Kerry thought that, quote, proxies for Bush had rigged of the voting machines.
Speaker 12: In 2004, the democratic process was thwarted.
Speaker 5: The 2004 presidential election in Ohio was riddled with unnecessary problems.
Speaker 29: Some machines malfunctioned, causing votes to be counted more than once or not at all.
Speaker 30: Based upon an inordinate number of allegations Suggesting gross voting rights violations and misconduct, I join with my colleagues in objective to counting the state of Ohio's electoral votes.
Speaker 31: Nas in 2000, the votes of many who wanted to vote were not, in fact, counted.
Speaker 32: This last Friday night, I I arranged to meet senator Kerry at Fundraiser to give him a copy of my book. He told me he now thinks the election was stolen.
Speaker 2: The wife of John Kerry said she has Lingering doubts about the legitimacy of the election. Her theory goes like this. 2 brothers, she calls hard right Republicans, Own 80% of loading machines in the US. Therefore, it would be easy to hack into the mother machines that control the electronic voting. There were numerous irregularities in Ohio, including large percentages of rejections of provisional balloting, problems with voting machines.
Speaker 0: As we look At our election system, I think it's fair to say that there are many legitimate questions about its accuracy, About its integrity
Speaker 22: There are still legitimate concerns over the integrity of our elections.
Speaker 8: The question obviously is How many instances were not caught that we don't know about? Number 1, we've seen a lot of what I'll call honest glitches where it just didn't work right, But also that these machines are hackable. A dishonest employee of the vendor or a dishonest employee of a local board of elections or simply someone who knows electronics and has Computer at home, could hack into these machines and then put in a secret instruction to disregard every 20th democratic voter at 10 percent to the carrier to the Bush vote or whatever, you might not even know it.
Speaker 4: I agree with tens of millions of Americans who are very worried that when they cast the ballot on
Speaker 33: an electronic voting machine that there is no paper trail to record that vote. The numerous irregularities That occurred with the electronic voting machines in Ohio on November 2nd last year point to an unresolved of national crisis.
Speaker 11: We cannot declare that the election of November 2, 2004 was free and clear and transparent and real. There must be independent testing the voting machines used in
Speaker 0: Ohio. I'm not confident that the election in Ohio was fairly decided. We know that there was substantial voter suppression, And the machines were not reliable.
Speaker 22: The members of congress who have brought this challenge are speaking up for their aggrieved constituents, many of whom may have been disenfranchised in this process.
Speaker 31: Treating today's electoral vote count in congress as a meaningless ritual would be an insult to our unless we registered our own protest against the obviously flawed voting process that took place in so many of our states.
Speaker 34: Voters who wish to cast a vote Vote for president or vice president can't approach the polls with certainty that their vote will be Counting.
Speaker 27: One of the most significant problems in Ohio and in many other states was the lack of measures to ensure the integrity of electronic voting machines.
Speaker 19: In 2004, they caused Democratic voters in Ohio to wait for 8 hours before they could cast their Ballot. They turn the Department of Civil Rights and the Justice Department into the voter suppression division with voter ID laws, voter purging, voter caging, voter intimidation. There aren't gonna be any more election stealing.
Speaker 2: Now you have one very affirmative statement to make.
Speaker 23: We won.
Speaker 2: But I didn't lose. I got the votes, but we won't know exactly how many because how they cheated. I did win my election. I just didn't get to have We were robbed of an election. Without voter suppression, Stacey Abrams would be the governor of Georgia.
Andrew Gillum is the governor of Florida.
Speaker 29: Using the word rigged, Using the word steal, do you think it's dangerous going into 2020?
Speaker 2: I I don't because we can actually back it up. And so in response to what I believe Well, it's stolen election. I'm not saying they stole it from me. They stole it from the door.
Speaker 29: Back to the
Speaker 2: outside asking if I'm ever gonna concede. The answer is no.
Speaker 0: If she had a fair election, she already would have won.
Speaker 2: This is not a speech of concession. Because concession needs to acknowledge an action that's Right, true, or prop. And I will not concede because the erosion of our democracy is not right. You refuse to concede and say that you lost. Do you stand by that decision today?
Absolutely.
Speaker 5: If Stacey Abrams doesn't win in Georgia, they stole it. It's clear. It's clear.
Speaker 2: It was not a free and fair election. I think the election was stolen from the people of Georgia. I believe it was stolen from the voters.
Speaker 25: So I think that Stacey Abrams' election is being stolen from her.
Speaker 2: The election was not fair. The process was not Fair. Thousands of Georgians had their voices stolen because they were not able to cast ballots, and they cannot be guaranteed that their votes will be counted in 2020, if we don't do this right.
Speaker 29: If what happens to you happens nationally and we we see, whoever runs for whoever wins the Democratic nominee, if they They actually I can prove that there's a number of votes in every state that that and that and that's the same thing that you just described happens in multiple states. Should they concede?
Speaker 2: I do not think we should concede an election until we know the results of an election. I still fundamentally believe it could be a failure, And that's just not how life works. If it looks like it's cheating, it probably is. If it looks like it's rigged, it probably
Speaker 4: She would be the governor of Georgia today had the governor of Georgia not disenfranchise 1,400,000 Georgia voters before the election. That's what happened to Stacey Abrams. They took the vote away.
Speaker 2: We've been raised to believe that it is in that respect to
Speaker 16: call
Speaker 35: You, notably did not concede.
Speaker 2: I did not.
Speaker 35: Okay. You acknowledged That he won, but you did not concede. Correct. 5 months later, do you still feel like your opponent won through voter suppression?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 13: Reminder, she wrote, Brian Kemp stole the gubernatorial election from Georgians and Stacey Abrams.
Speaker 2: I said that the election was stolen from Georgia voters. The Process that took place during the legislative cycle was one that did not countenance and did not pay attention to the deep and real concerns of those Who watched this election be stolen in the state of Georgia? It was stolen from the voters of Georgia. Georgia voters did not have their votes counted. They were not allowed to cast votes.
They had their votes Scarded.
Speaker 36: It certainly gave the appearance of unfairness. I think it was, unfair. Stacy ran a great campaign. She probably won.
Speaker 2: And it was not fair to those who filled up absentee ballots. And depending on the county you sent it to, it either was counted or not counted, assuming you received it in time. Brian Kemp oversaw for 8 years the systematic and systemic dismantling of our democracy, and that means there could not be free and fair elections in Georgia. As long as we have eligible American citizens who cannot cast a ballot, then the game is rigged. I am complicit if I say that that system fair.
Concession in the political space is an acknowledgment that the process was fair, and I don't believe that to be so. But I refuse to concede because concession means that the process was proper, that the result was true and right, and I cannot say that. If I tend to say I didn't lose, I just didn't win. And I don't call it a loss. I just didn't win.
Right. Right. Yes. You did. Okay.
Officially. Yes. Eventually. Put it this way. I didn't get to get inaugurated, and that's possible.
Okay. But will I say that this election was not tainted, was not and a disenfranchisement of thousands of voters, I will not say that.
Speaker 0: Candidates, both black and white, lost their races because they have been deprived of the votes they otherwise would have gotten. And the clearest Example is from next door in Georgia. Stacey Abrams should be governor leading that state right now.
Speaker 2: I was joking with Beth backstage when Cliff said, you know, she lost. I'm like, no. I just didn't win, because we don't know what really happened because of the miasma of voter suppression. I can't know for a fact that I would be the governor of Georgia but for the malfeasance and the mismanagement It's Brian Kemp, but I know it's a pretty good guess. So I can't prove that I would have won, but I know we don't know because of how he behaved.
Speaker 9: Is he the legitimate governor elect him towards me.
Speaker 2: He is the person who won an adequate number of votes But that's not from the governor.
Speaker 9: With all with all due respect, and I respect where you're coming from, and I respect The the issues that you're raising, you're not answering the question. Do you think it was
Speaker 2: Wait a minute. No. I what I'm talking to you
Speaker 9: You're not using the word legitimate. Is he the legitimate governor Like, Georgia.
Speaker 2: He is the legal governor of Georgia. See, I'm here to tell you that just because you win doesn't mean you're won. They said to me that you did not lose. You just did not win. Yes.
So we're gonna talk about that. Bad news is that we didn't get the victory we secured. And the thing is we will never know empirically that I got more votes because because we will never know which votes didn't count. This was not fair. It was not right, and it is deeply improper that Someone could ascend to that role having performed so basely and so crassly against the very people he is now supposed to represent.
The election was not fair. The process was not fair. So you don't feel that you lost fair
Speaker 8: and square?
Speaker 2: I do recognize I am not the governor of Georgia, but I do like to point out something that is true for me and for many in our state, And that is we won.
Speaker 3: I'm not saying it's gonna be legit. It's the increase in the prospect of being illegitimate is a direct proportion of us not being able to get These these reforms passed.
Speaker 0: Right wing extremists already have a plan to literally steal the next presidential Election.
Speaker 25: It's not as if it's just Republicans who have monkeed around with elections in the past, sometimes Democrats have to. You know, whenever people are in power, They're you know, they have this tendency to try to, you know, tilt things in their direction.
@4Mischief - • ᗰISᑕᕼIᗴᖴ ™ •
Hillary Clinton is deathly afraid that the Supreme Court could rule in favor of fair and safe elections. She wants to secure that her friends could use Dominion voting machines and “allegedly” steal another election in 2024 https://t.co/yteWFE8XMd
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Supreme Court, controlled by the right wing, might allow state legislatures to overturn presidential elections. This means the 2024 election could be decided by republican-controlled state legislatures, bypassing the popular vote and electoral college, potentially leading to election theft.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The right wing controlled Supreme Court may be poised to rule on giving state legislatures, yes you heard me that correctly, state legislatures the power to overturn presidential elections. Just think, if that happens, the 2024 presidential election could be decided not by the popular vote or even by the anachronistic electoral college, but by state legislatures many of them republican controlled to literally steal the next presidential election.
@WesternLensman - Western Lensman
FLASHBACK to the time when Hollywood openly exhorted Republican electors to overturn the 2016 Presidential election results and Donald Trump’s victory. They called on electors to change their votes, defy the will of the people, and install Hillary Clinton into office instead. https://t.co/9f89MCCiVw
Video Transcript AI Summary
The message urges Republican members of the electoral college to vote their conscience on December 19th to prevent an unfit candidate like Donald Trump from becoming president. They emphasize the importance of selecting a qualified candidate who is especially competent to serve as president. By doing so, they can give the House of Representatives the option to choose a better candidate. The message expresses support and solidarity with all citizens of the United States and calls on the electors to make history by standing up for the American people.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Republican members of the electoral college, this message is for you. As you know, our founding fathers built the electoral college to safeguard the American people from the dangers of a demagogue and to ensure that the presidency only goes to someone who is to an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.
Speaker 1: An eminent degree. Someone who is highly qualified for the job.
Speaker 2: The electoral college was created specifically to prevent an unfit candidate from becoming president. There are 538 members of the electoral college. You And just 36 other conscientious Republican electors can make a difference
Speaker 3: by voting your conscience on December 19th.
Speaker 2: And thereby shaping the future of our nation.
Speaker 3: I'm not asking you to vote for Hillary Clinton.
Speaker 2: I'm not asking you to vote for Hillary Clinton.
Speaker 0: I'm not asking you to vote for Hillary Clinton.
Speaker 4: As you know, the constitution gives electors the right to vote for any eligible person.
Speaker 0: Any eligible person, no matter which party they belong to.
Speaker 1: But it should certainly be someone you consider especially competent
Speaker 2: Especially competent to serve as president of the United States of America.
Speaker 5: By voting your conscience, you and other brave Republican electors can give the House of Representatives the option to select a qualified candidate for the presidency.
Speaker 2: I stand with you.
Speaker 0: I stand with you. I stand with you.
Speaker 2: I stand with you in support and solidarity with conservatives, independents, and liberals.
Speaker 1: And all citizens of the United States.
Speaker 0: The American people trust that your voice speaks for us all.
Speaker 3: And that you you will make yourself heard through the constitutional responsibility granted to you by Alexander Hamilton himself.
Speaker 4: What is evident is that Donald Trump lacks more than the qualifications to be president.
Speaker 1: He lacks the necessary stability.
Speaker 2: And clearly the respect for the constitution of our great nation. You have position
Speaker 3: The authority and the opportunity
Speaker 0: to go down in the books as an American hero
Speaker 5: who changed the course of history.
Speaker 4: And you have my respect You have my respect You have my respect
Speaker 0: For your patriotism. And service to the American people. Unite for America.
@truthtroll_X - Truth Troll Official™️
Corrupt Hilary Clinton. 🧙 She will go down in history as the woman who lost to Donald Trump to be President. Joe Biden was the second woman to lose. https://t.co/mGSxyXOqli
Video Transcript AI Summary
I never sent or received classified information. Clinton's emails contained classified material. She used multiple devices, not just one. Work-related emails were not all returned. Clinton's lawyers did not individually read all emails. Despite potential violations, no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case. Trump may have obstructed justice according to Mueller's report.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Thing, and I will underscore nothing that I was sent, or that I sent was marked classified.
Speaker 1: Secretary Clinton said I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material. Was that true?
Speaker 2: There was classified material emailed.
Speaker 0: I never sent nor received any information that was classified at the time it was sent and received.
Speaker 1: Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked class on her emails either sent or received. Was that true?
Speaker 2: That's not true. 110 emails in 52 email chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received.
Speaker 0: When I got to work as secretary of state, I opted for convenience to use my personal email account because I thought
Speaker 3: it would be easier to carry just one device
Speaker 0: for my work and for my personal emails instead of 2.
Speaker 1: Secretary Clinton said she used just one device. Was that
Speaker 2: true? She used multiple devices during the 4 years, of her term as secretary of state.
Speaker 0: I didn't have to turn over anything. I chose to turn over 55,000 pages of my email, but we turned over everything that was work related. Every single thing.
Speaker 1: Secretary Clinton said all work related emails were returned to the state department. Was that true?
Speaker 2: No. We found work related emails, 1,000 that were not returned.
Speaker 0: What? Like with a cloth or something?
Speaker 1: You get a subpoena, and after getting the subpoena, you delete 33,000 emails, and then you acid wash them.
Speaker 0: Everything he just said is absolutely false.
Speaker 1: Secretary Clinton said neither she nor anyone else deleted work related emails from her personal account. Was that true?
Speaker 2: The email software was removed. That didn't remove the email content. The effect was that millions of email fragments ended up in the server's unused or Slack space. This helped us recover work related emails that were not among the 30,000 that were produced to state.
Speaker 0: We went through a thorough process to identify all of my work related emails and deliver them to the state department.
Speaker 1: Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the email content individually?
Speaker 2: No. Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.
Speaker 0: Did Donald Trump obstruct justice as you read the incidences as Mueller lays them out? Well, I think there's enough there that any other person who had engaged in those acts, would certainly, have been indicted.
@EL4USA - 💋Elissa4Real💋
Why won't Joe Biden & the democrats face President Trump, the republican candidate on election day? Because they can't win in a fair election. This is Election Interference. https://t.co/YksAgzuQEh
Video Transcript AI Summary
President is critical of surrogates pushing tariffs on China, electric vehicles made abroad, and legal cases against him. He cites polls, legal experts, and media to argue his innocence. He claims the trial is politically motivated and unfair, with no evidence of wrongdoing. He questions the judge's impartiality and lack of crime in the case. Others agree with him, calling it a sham trial and an assault on the president. He concludes by expressing frustration at being the only one allowed to speak and leaves abruptly.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: President now in court about to speak to the cameras. Let's drop on in.
Speaker 1: Surrogates, and they are speaking very beautifully. They come all is pushing down everybody's throat even though people don't want them. He wants to put a, big tariff on China, which is a suggestion that I said where have you been for 3 and a half years? They should've done it a long time ago. But they've also gotta do it on And they went away from what I was doing.
They're eating our lunch. So they have to do it much more than electric vehicles. And they have to get going fast, but it should have been done three and a half years ago. I did, and I started. And then they started playing games, and it was very bad very bad for the auto industry.
In Michigan, the auto industry is doing very poorly because jobs are starting to bleed. We're losing, you know, with the electric vehicle mandate that will be made in China. They're all gonna be made in China and also in Mexico, owned by China. Paul just came out being very respected Redfield Wilton, and it has us up 6 in Michigan, 7 in North Carolina, Pennsylvania plus 2, Georgia plus 5, Florida plus 9, Arizona plus 2, and up in every other place too. So that just came out.
That's on top of yesterday's a few months. He's watching this scam taking place, Michael Abenadi. Have you heard the name? He said the next time you're accused of something by someone, a coworker, neighbor, friend, significant other, stranger, ask yourself if it would be okay if only they were allowed to speak, if you would say, antagonize while you were not allowed to respond, Trump Trump not being allowed to respond to the various people that are making comments. Now think of it, you ask me questions, I'm not allowed to respond.
Quotes. Because he he's not there. You ready? So here's a couple of quotes. Mark Levin, great man, great legal talent.
This is not a trial of Donald Trump. It's a case of the Democrat Party versus America. It also represents the greatest effort to interfere with and steal a federal election in American political history. Biden is seeking to clear the field. He wants to clear the field because he can't do it himself, so he's weaponized the Department of Justice.
And as as you know, they have their people in that room. The DOJ is in that room because they wanna try and hurt me. Now the good news is my phone numbers have gone up significantly. This is not what they had in mind. Newt Gingrich, this is without precedent in American history.
It has never occurred to president John Adams or anybody else that include Jim, your primary competitor, your primary opponent. In his case, vice president Thomas Jefferson. This goes back a long way. This has never happened in our country before. There's never been anything like this.
Andy McCarthy just came out. New Yorkers should be outraged at the mockery brag is making of the state's legal system as the entire country looks on. The entire world is looking on. There's a very bad thing that's happening in New York. Businesses are leaving New York because of what happened here and what happened with another crooked judge, Ngorong.
Totally crooked, and he's under investigation right now as he should be. He's under a big investigation I hear right now. Jonathan Turley, experts are struggling, not sure what the crime is being alleged. Prosecutors have not explained why denoting this as a legal expense was wrong. So they say that the bookkeeping era, I paid a lawyer a certain amount of money.
We marked it down as legal expense. So I had a legal expense, and I marked it down as a legal expense. I didn't mark it down as construction of a wall, construction of a building. I didn't mark it down as electricity cost. I took a legal expense, and they called it I didn't know what a bookkeeper did it.
You did it exactly right. Took a legal expense and called it a legal expense. This is the whole case. Are you allowed to call the legal expense a legal expense? I don't know what else you'd call it actually, but he brings it up here, the legal expense.
It was, you know, what's the problem? I never thought that as an attorney, I could see a system like New York's one of the most sophisticated legal bars in the world really debases itself so badly. This judge should not be allowed in the case, and he should not allow this case to go forward. Versions should rule in favor of a directed verdict immediately. There is an insufficient amount of evidence.
No crime has been shot. No crime has been committed. There's been no crime. Judge Jeanine Biro, brilliant guy. Greg's argument is legally flawed.
Greg Jarrett, brilliant guy. Greg's argument is legally flawed. The Federal Election Commission, FEC, determined there was no campaign finance violation. The Department of Justice agreed no civil filing was levied or criminal charge rendered. Those two entities have exclusive authority over federal elections.
The state has absolutely no authority in the city. Bragg has no authority, and Bragg never wanted to this case in all fairness to him. He never wanted to bring this case. Now local prosecutors such as Alden Bragg should be involved in this case. And by the way, the judge you'll as you know, is totally conflicted and everybody's talking about it.
It's a big embarrassment to New York legal analyst, Michael Moore of CNN. Doesn't think the prosecution has proven its case. Senator John Kennedy, the respected gentleman, I will tell you that trial says more about politics than it does about an alleged crime. If you wanna hide something from break, you put it in the law book, bringing in a fellow criminal trial. It hasn't proved to be a felony.
There was no crime. Everybody's saying there's no crime. There is abs but I've been here for almost 4 weeks in an icebox. I go at the icebox listening to a judge who's totally corrupt and conflicted. Will Shaw, finally respected Mueller, hush money.
It's not a crime. Signing an NDA is not a crime. By the way, congress everybody in congress have NDAs. Are very common. Nondisclosure agreements.
They're not a crime. Claimant, CBS morning news. There's no evidence that this case is about campaign election violations. There's no evidence. But again, we go back to the federal law.
The FEC, Federal Election Commission, said this is not a problem. There's no case. And Vivek is here right now, so he can speak for himself. He said this is a sham trial. It's politically motivated.
It's an assault on the leading candidate, the US president. I would expect he would say something good actually, so I won't go through the rest, but he's here. He's gonna talk to you. The speaker of the house is here. We have, Byron Donald's.
Corey is here. We have a lot of great people here to talk to you, and they won't let them speak here. I guess they wanna make it difficult for them to speak. So for some reason, I can speak here, but I'm the only one that's allowed. The gay guard has to come off.
So when you ask me a question about the people that we're talking about, I'm not allowed to answer. There's never been anything like this in the history of our country. It's a scam. It's election interference at a level that's never taken place before. And now if you don't mind, I'm gonna go into the icebox and sit for a long time.
Thank you very much. Mister
@stclairashley - Ashley St. Clair
“Just admit you hijacked democracy. Just admit you hate Trump so much you’re willing to trample on democracy and steal the vote from the people in the Democrat party.” 🔥🔥🔥 from @stoolpresidente https://t.co/H6nyoNtXLR
Video Transcript AI Summary
Kamala was chosen by elites to run for president, despite receiving zero votes in 2020. The speaker criticizes the Democratic Party for hijacking democracy to defeat Trump, calling it the lowest point in their lifetime. They challenge critics to explain their stance but are met with silence. The speaker demands honesty about sacrificing democracy to win.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You know, Kamala, news flash, ran for president in 2020. You know how many votes she got? 0. 0. She was so disliked and such a bad candidate.
She didn't make it to the 1st fucking primary. And I guess she's never gonna have to get a real vote because she's been handpicked on purpose by the people who have been running Joe for the last 2 or 3 years. Now they're gonna try to run her and trot her out. It's disgusting. It's a hijacking democracy.
They knew Joe wasn't fit before and they waited. Fine. All that, fine. Take it with a grain of salt. For the Democrats, like a Rob Reiner.
This is the tweet I saw Rob Reiner that just sent me off. Democracy is saved. Kamala's running. And all these people now, Kamala AOC, you just said it was a cool 3 days ago, AOC. Now Kamala Kamala.
The Democrats and the left, the way they shit on our face and tell us it's 80 and sunny is so infuriating. Just admit you hijacked democracy. Just admit you don't care if fucking Mussolini or a head of lettuce who's running against Trump. You hate him so much, you're willing to trample on democracy, steal the vote from the American public, the most supposedly important right an American has, the right to vote. You have stolen it from the Democratic Party.
You have said you don't get to choose who runs for president. We do. A group of elite small people are gonna handpick and shove down your throat who you vote for. Just admit that. But this democracy is democracy is saved and America is saved.
It's the lowest point for democracy in my lifetime. Just say you hate fucking Trump so much, you're willing to do whatever it takes to beat Trump, and it doesn't matter what rights you steal, stomp on, or whatever you're willing to do. If you say that, at least I'll have an ounce of respect. But this democracy is safe when you've absolutely done the worst thing for democracy. It's like we're a third world country now, the way this thing's being run.
Just say that and at least I can have an ounce of respect. And for all the people who are being, Dave, you're dangerous. Dave, shut up. Dave, what are you talking about? Stick to pizza.
Stick to ports. You know, not what one person who has sent me a message or tried to explain, know not what one of them has done, explained how I'm wrong about anything. They're just like, shut up. Shut up. Shut up.
If one person can explain how anything I've said is wrong, I'll fucking
@iluminatibot - illuminatibot
Proof elections are rigged https://t.co/y7oyxJGdK0
Video Transcript AI Summary
Clinton Eugene Curtis, a computer programmer, testified that in October 2000, he wrote a prototype program for then-Florida Speaker of the House Tom Feeney that could rig an election by flipping the vote 51/49. According to Curtis, this program would be undetectable to election officials, only visible in the source code or by comparing paper receipts to vote totals.
Curtis stated that while a protective program could not prevent such rigging, programmers could examine source code for irregularities. He testified that he did not know if Ohio elections had protective measures. Based on statistical anomalies between exit polling data and tabulated results, Curtis believes the Ohio presidential election was likely hacked.
Curtis said he was asked to hide the fraud in the source code to control the vote in South Florida. He handed in a report and program to Missus Yang, who said they needed to hide the fraud. Curtis stated that if exit polls are significantly different from the vote, then someone is manipulating the vote. He added that timers could also be set to manipulate the vote.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Mister Curtis, would you please state your full name for the record?
Speaker 1: Name is Clinton Eugene Curtis.
Speaker 0: And where do you reside?
Speaker 1: LSC, Florida.
Speaker 0: And what is your profession?
Speaker 1: I'm a computer programmer.
Speaker 0: Would you please speak into the microphone so the audience can hear your testimony? I'm a computer programmer. Mister Curtis, are there programs that can be used to secretly fix elections?
Speaker 1: Yes. How do you
Speaker 0: know that to be the case?
Speaker 1: Because in October of 2000, I wrote a prototype for president's congressman Tom Feeney at the company I work for in Oviedo, Florida that did just that.
Speaker 0: And we say did just that it would rig an election.
Speaker 1: It would flip the vote 5149 to whoever you wanted to go to and whichever race you wanted to win
Speaker 0: and with that program that you designed to be something that elections officials that might be on county boards of elections could detect?
Speaker 1: They never see it.
Speaker 0: Mister, would you answer that question once again?
Speaker 1: They would never see it.
Speaker 0: So how would such a such a program, a secret program that, fixes the election, how could it be detected?
Speaker 1: You would have to view it either in source code or you have to have a receipt and then count the hard paper against the actual photo. Other than that, you won't see it.
Speaker 0: Alright, mister Curtis. If you had been asked you or others with your professional expertise have been asked to design a protective program to that would protect the Ohio elections from against against that software to fix the election, could you have done so?
Speaker 1: If we've been asked to make a program that could fix the election, sure. Anybody can do it.
Speaker 0: No. Could could you have designed a program or a procedure or protocol that would have protected Ohio against this kind of rigging?
Speaker 1: No. You have to look at the source code. You have to get probably programmers from both or all parties to look at the source code and determine if there's anything in there that shouldn't be there. I mean, it's a simple program. You're adding 1 to a person's total.
It's a 100 lines of code tops. Alright. If
Speaker 0: So let's see. Are you aware of whether there was any protective action in Ohio against this kind of vote ring through software?
Speaker 1: I don't know. You don't know? I don't know.
Speaker 0: You were you were not asked to assist in the development of any protective system. Is that correct?
Speaker 1: No. I was not.
Speaker 0: In Europe, have you, reviewed at all the election results in Ohio?
Speaker 1: No. I haven't. Okay.
Speaker 0: Given the availability of such boat rigging software and the testimony that has been given under oath of substantial statistical anomalies, it grows this differences between exit polling data and the actual tabulated results, do you have an opinion whether or not Ohio election the Ohio election, presidential election was hacked?
Speaker 1: Yes. I would say it was. I mean, if you're if you have exit pulling data that is significantly off for the vote, then it's probably hacked.
Speaker 0: And your testimony is under oath?
Speaker 1: Yes, sir.
Speaker 0: And the testimony you've given is true?
Speaker 1: Yes, sir.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 2: I was told that I'm gonna have the same question back to the podium. Who did you say you were asked to prepare?
Speaker 1: I was asked by Tom Feeney. He's now a congressman. At that time, He was speaker of the House of Florida. Yang Enterprises, which is the company I work for, lobbyist, and their corporate attorneys. We wore a lot of hats.
Speaker 2: And at the time, he was the speaker of the House of Florida. Is that what you said? Yes.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Congressman. You say he was the the lobbyist for the voting machine company as at the same time you're the speaker of the house?
Speaker 1: I don't know what the voting machine company is. He was a lobbyist for Yang Enterprises. We had NASA contracts and And
Speaker 2: Yang Enterprises did what? Computers? Computers. Okay. And he was your lobbyist.
Speaker 1: Your company. The lobbyist for that company. Yes.
Speaker 2: And he asked you to design a to seek to design a code to Reagan Watson? Yes. While he was speaker of the Ford House?
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 2: This is during or previous to the 2,000 election?
Speaker 1: Yes. October, end of September.
Speaker 2: And did he ever express why he wanted to go to Reagan election?
Speaker 1: No. I immediately assumed that they were trying to keep you guys from cheating them. So so I wrote up the documentation of what you would look for in the source code, how you would make sure that you didn't get you know, take advantage of, make sure that all voting machines had receipts because that way you could back count the ones that looked a little funny. And I handed it over Are receipts you mean a paper trail? Yes.
Paper trail. And I handed that in to missus Yang and said,
Speaker 0: here's your report, here's your program.
Speaker 1: And she said, you don't understand. We need to hide the fraud in the source in the source code.
Speaker 2: Hide the fraud, not reveal it.
Speaker 1: Not reveal the fraud because we needed to to control the boat in South Florida was what she said.
Speaker 2: Oh, absolutely. To your knowledge, was this used? I have
Speaker 1: no idea. I was ready to leave.
Speaker 2: Your testimony a moment ago, I think you said just before you left and answered the congressman and Tucker Jones' question, would you just repeat what you said in terms of the the, exit polls?
Speaker 1: Oh, the exit polls should not be significantly different than the vote.
Speaker 2: And if they were, you would conclude what?
Speaker 1: I would conclude someone's playing with the boat
Speaker 2: now with the exit polls.
Speaker 1: That's possible too. Okay. It is something is definitely skewed something
Speaker 2: is skewed in one of the other right
Speaker 1: to select which one you have to see where the problem is.
Speaker 2: Let me ask you one further question. Assuming for the moment that such software, that's what you call it, such software to rig a boat was used I think, I think, I think, I think, I think, I think,
Speaker 1: I think, I think, I think, I think, I think, I think, I think, I think, I think, I think, I think, I think, I think, I think, I think, happen. You can also set timers to do that, but then you see the timers. Then you'd have to take those machines, decompile them, which I couldn't do, but possibly a Microsoft and MIT something to do. You might you might be able to see it. You might not depends on how good they are destroying what they had.
@DefiyantlyFree - Insurrection Barbie
Because Donald Trump questioned the voting machines during his final rally today I’m going to preemptively post this video of Democrats questioning machines for the fake news. https://t.co/SuvfC0TAXw
Video Transcript AI Summary
Voting machines remain highly vulnerable to tampering, as researchers have shown. Even those with limited skills can breach these systems quickly. In 2018, machines in Georgia and Texas were reported to have deleted or switched votes. Major manufacturers are compromising security by recommending remote access software, making machines targets for hackers. Many states still use outdated machines that are easy to hack, with 43% of American voters relying on systems known to have serious security flaws. Demonstrations have shown how easily these machines can be compromised. Additionally, aging systems often run unsupported software, increasing their susceptibility to cyber attacks. A successful hack could significantly impact close elections by targeting key swing states or counties. Concerns about potential breaches are growing.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I continue to think that our voting machines are too vulnerable. The researchers have repeatedly demonstrated that ballot recording machines and other voting systems are susceptible to tampering.
Speaker 1: Even hackers with limited prior knowledge, tools, and resources are able to breach voting machines in a matter of minutes. In 2018, electronic voting machines in Georgia and Texas deleted votes for certain candidates or switched votes from one candidate to another.
Speaker 0: The biggest seller of voting machines is doing something that violates cybersecurity 101, directing that you install remote access software which would make a machine like that, you know, a magnet for fraudsters and hackers.
Speaker 2: These voting machines can be hacked quite easily.
Speaker 1: You could easily hack into them. It makes it seem like all these states are doing different things, but in fact, 3 companies are controlling that. It is the individual voting machines that some pose that pose some of the greatest risks.
Speaker 3: There are a lot of states that are dealing with antiquated machines. Right, which are vulnerable to being hacked.
Speaker 2: Workers were able to easily hack into an electronic voting machine. It was possible to switch votes.
Speaker 0: 43% of American voters use voting machines that researchers have found have serious security flaws, including backdoors.
Speaker 4: We know how vulnerable now our systems were. We know I know the hackathon that took place last year where virtually every machine was broken into fairly quickly.
Speaker 3: I actually held a demonstration for my colleagues here at the capitol, where we brought in, folks who, before our eyes, hacked election machines, those that are not those that are being used in many states.
Speaker 1: Aging systems also frequently rely on unsupported software, like Windows XP in 2000, which may not receive regular security patches and are thus more vulnerable to the latest methods of cyber attack.
Speaker 2: In a close present or election, they just need to hack one swing state or maybe 1 or 2 or maybe just a few counties in one swing state.
Speaker 1: I'm very concerned that you could have a hack that finally went through.
@amuse - @amuse
@bennyjohnson Evidently Biden didn’t let her use his voter fraud operation… https://t.co/9oUmlbu9nd
Video Transcript AI Summary
We have assembled the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in American political history, similar to what was done during President Obama's administration.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Secondly, we're in a situation where we have put together, and you guys did did it for our the president Obama's administration before this. We have put together, I think, the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics.
@PamKeithFL - Pam Keith, Esq.
Is it possible that the machines were hacked to switch the tallies from Harris to Trump? Because that would make actual sense.
@MJTruthUltra - MJTruthUltra
Kari Lakes Opponent is now 94,000 votes from Donald Trump… 🤦🏻♂️ Drop a . If you call bullshit. https://t.co/lAEIkgXcMU
@DschlopesIsBack - Gain of Fauci
Hillary's "Hypothetical" Plea To China "Since Russia is clearly backing republicans, why don't we ask China to back us?" "China, if you're listening, why don't you get Trump's tax returns? I'm sure our media would RICHLY reward you." https://t.co/wo9gfmS9pt
Video Transcript AI Summary
Russia isn't the only significant adversary; China is equally capable. If Russia is supporting Republicans, why not ask China for support as well? I'm calling on China to assist us. Additionally, if China is listening, they should obtain Trump's tax returns, as our media would likely reward them for it.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You know, the only other adversary of ours who's anywhere near as good as the Russians is China. So why should Russia have all the fun? And since Russia is clearly backing Republicans, why don't we ask China to back us? I hereby, tonight, ask China. That's right.
And not only that, China, if you're listening, why don't you get Trump's tax returns? I'm sure our media would richly reward you.
@BuzzPatterson - Buzz Patterson
She was in on it too. And she’s being awfully quiet. Make my dreams come true @realDonaldTrump! @HillaryClinton