reSee.it - Related Video Feed

On February 11, 462 log entries were overwritten by a script, followed by 37,680 entries on March 3, and 330 entries on March 12, the day before the system was received. The EMS admin account was responsible for these actions. During an audit, having full context of the election is crucial, yet that was not the case here. Specifically, within the Dominion software used for results tallying and reporting, someone executed a command to purge all election results, successfully deleting all records and files from the NAS directory, which contained essential election data, just before the audit began.

According to the Georgia Secretary of State website, Trump lost by 12,670 votes. An anomaly detection algorithm called isolation force can identify outliers in election data. The burden of proof lies with the system to prove the fairness of elections. In Georgia, after checking in at a poll pad, voters use ImageCAST precinct terminals to cast their votes. The ballot images are then transported to a warehouse and run through tabulation software called Democracy Suite. The totals are exported to a Dominion server and transmitted to the election night reporting server, which sends the data to the secretary of state and data aggregators. The process includes options for updating, rejecting, and generating temporary batches of data.

I was invited to investigate the Mesa County server to compare the before and after images. I wanted to test the system's security, so I used a backdoor utility called SQL Server Management Studio, which is not certified software and should not be on a voting machine. I quickly accessed the presidential election results in Mesa County, showing Biden with 31,000 votes and Trump with 56,000 votes. I will explain later how easily I could manipulate the election results if I wanted to.

Linda McLaughlin and her colleagues present a data-focused argument alleging election fraud in Georgia, supported by multiple data analyses and demonstrations. - Linda McLaughlin introduces the data integrity group and states that data is numerical and non-partisan; she aims to remedy a lack of presented data in the discussion. - Dave Labou, a lead data scientist, explains that their analysis across precincts, counties, and the state identified over 40 data points of negative voting or vote switching across candidates totaling over 200,000 votes. Separately, machine learning algorithms used for anomaly detection in fraud detection flagged over 500 precincts with over 1,000,000 corresponding votes showing suspicious activity. He emphasizes that the process is scientific and not tied to political affiliations. - Labou uses a banking analogy to illustrate data integrity concerns: in hypothetical online banking, deposits or withdrawals being redirected or split would indicate fraudulent activity. He applies this concept to voting data, arguing that the voting system data aligns with the Secretary of State data used to certify results, yet exhibits patterns akin to transfers and reallocation not authorized by voters. - He states that the data are publicly available but require advanced programming to extract, parse, and join datasets. Their independent team has made all analysis, programs, and data public to allow replication and has produced videos to translate the analysis for broader understanding. - A key claim is that receiving over 90% in a precinct is a marker for fraud; in Fulton County, more than 150 precincts voted 90% or more for Biden, and in the statewide race (decided by less than 13,000 votes), these 150 Fulton precincts accounted for 152,000 Biden votes, described as a clear indicator of suspicious or fraudulent activity. - Labou and team present a series of visuals and explanations indicating explicit vote count switching, e.g., in Dodge County, where Trump’s votes appear to be subtracted while Biden’s counts increase in tandem with county updates, leading to a shift in totals that would not appear in state totals due to timing of updates. - They reference adjudication as the review of ballots flagged during scanning, noting that only ballots with a contest causing questions about how the computer reads them are adjudicated. - In DeKalb County, they assert it is statistically impossible for nine out of ten voters to vote for Biden in 94 precincts. - They describe a data flow in Fulton County: poll pad check-in, ballot image saved on the machine, SD cards transported to drop-off locations, escorted to a warehouse, run through Democracy Suite, exported to a Dominion server, and inserted into a SQL Server database before transmission to the Secretary of State and data aggregators. - A critical point is the vulnerability within the county update data-entry process: the square box detailing data-entry options in the election software allows updating vote batches, projecting batches, and generating new or temporary batches that can be injected directly into the tally; these options can be validated and published, enabling potential manipulation before server upload. - They pose questions about validation: whether two observers from both parties were present during SD card transmissions and drop-off transmissions, and whether there is a public log of exchanges at drop-off points. They challenge why elected officials have not pursued these questions about voting integrity. - Labou notes the process is machine-to-machine and, by design, should not decrement sums; any decrement requires a robust explanation, and their data suggest negative drops are inconsistent with normal sequential processes. Speaker 2 clarifies the data sources (CITL election night data and Edison/New York Times data) and asserts that the process from poll pads to secretary of state is machine-driven, with no human entry of totals, thereby removing human entry error as an explanation for observed negative changes. Speaker 4 adds emphasis on the validation and potential vulnerabilities in the software options used for election administration, underscoring the need for transparency and inquiry into the electoral process.

On February 11th, a script overwrote 462 log entries. On March 3rd, the same script overwrote 37,686 log entries. On March 12th, the day before the system was received, 330 log entries were overwritten by the script. The EMS admin account performed these actions. A log file from the Dominion software for results tallying and reporting shows that someone purged all the results for the election. The action completed successfully, deleting all the files on the NAS directory, including results and images from the election. According to the transcript, an individual ran a program to clear all records in the system used to generate the official results the day before an audit started.

The speaker explains that the system consists of computers, machines, and software. The machines function like thumbs, handling the ballots and envelopes. The computers, whether hardware or software, are responsible for executing instructions and providing answers. The speaker emphasizes the importance of the program's setup, execution, and verification to ensure accurate results. Additionally, they mention the significance of the input provided to the system.

In this video, the speakers discuss how the voting system can be easily manipulated using a USB drive. They explain that election officials are unaware of the potential misuse of USB drives in voting machines. The speakers demonstrate how a USB drive can be used to run a backdoor utility and manipulate the election results. They show that the screen does not display any indication of this manipulation. By inserting a specific USB drive, they are able to fix the flipped election results. The speakers emphasize the simplicity and affordability of USB drives, highlighting the vulnerability of the voting system.

On 2/11, 462 log entries were overwritten by a script. On 3rd March, 37,686 log entries were overwritten by the same script. The day before we received the system, 330 log entries were overwritten by that script. The EMS admin account was responsible for this. The challenge is that this occurred before an audit, and it deleted all the records and files related to the election. Someone deliberately ran a program to clear all the records in the system used for generating the official results.

During the election, there were several problems with the tabulator machines. Some machines broke down and had to be replaced, while incorrect information was inputted into others. The wrong files were loaded into the mainframe by the computer technician. The issues couldn't be resolved quickly, so everyone took a lunch break. Afterward, the machines were shut down and reset. New tests were conducted, and the results were printed out. The memory sticks were handed to the technician for loading into the server. Printouts were generated and compared for accuracy. County chairs signed the certification as observers, not in an official capacity, due to the problems with the test.

In 2022, the speaker presents data on the Maricopa County elections. They show a slide with the names of polling centers and dots representing tabulators. None of the 446 tabulators in the county were compliant with the Election Assistance Corporation regulations. The error rate was significantly higher, with some tabulators failing at a rate of 95%. Despite these failures, they were still used to process 5,000 ballots.

The speaker expresses frustration about a blank ballot that was not voted on. They mention being able to stop adjudication and scan and adjudicate all ballots, including the blank one. Misty asks if a ballot can be scanned more than once, and the speaker confirms that they have done it. They explain that they kept scanning the same batches of ballots. The speaker mentions that they have set the system to handle ambiguous marks and overvotes, but it should also handle blank ballots. They scan a blank ballot and accept it into the system, noting that the system does not know who touched the ballots during adjudication.

In the video, the speaker describes their observations during a ballot verification process. They noticed a yellow banner indicating "low confidence" on some ballots, but the signatures being compared were illegible and didn't match. The speaker asked about it, but was told not to worry as it was a new program being tested. Later, there was a server outage, but the lights were still on. When the computers came back up, a person who previously had a yellow banner now had a green one indicating "high confidence." The speaker observed conversations among the screeners and heard one person say they were now working on high confidence instead of low confidence.

The speaker expresses frustration about a blank ballot that was not voted on. They mention being able to stop adjudication and scan and adjudicate all ballots, including the blank one. Misty asks if a ballot can be scanned multiple times, and the speaker confirms they have done so. They mention not receiving any more ballots until about 1. The speaker explains that the system is set to handle ambiguous marks and overvotes, but they want to see if it can handle blank ballots as well. They scan the blank ballot, accept it into the system, and mention that the system does not know who touched the ballots during adjudication.

The Dominion system has two main components: the regular bucket and the adjudication bucket. In the regular bucket, votes are treated in a standard way. However, in the adjudication bucket, the operator has the power to make decisions at their discretion or apply the ranked choice voting algorithm. This means they can essentially do whatever they want with the votes. In some cases, like in Arizona, adjudication can be preprogrammed with specific commands, such as directing a certain percentage of adjudicated ballots to be cast for specific candidates, regardless of the actual votes.

The video discusses concerns about the potential manipulation of votes in election software. It questions whether proper validation processes were followed, such as having observers from both parties present during the transmission of SD cards and the transportation of ballots. The speaker also mentions the use of election night reporting data and emphasizes that there is no human entry of totals, which eliminates the possibility of human error.

The speaker believes that the rejected ballots were placed in a separate box to be later counted at the headquarters. The rejection happened at the voting center due to invalid ballots that wouldn't match any tabulator's program. The question arises if Maricopa County was contacted to clarify their processes. It is mentioned that the rejected ballots would be sent to central tabulation to be duplicated onto readable ballots and inserted into the system. However, there is no way for voters to confirm if this process was actually carried out, which raises concerns.

Speaker 0: Totals being awarded to Biden and Jorgensen's totals being awarded to Trump. After gaining access to a forensic image of the Dominion election management system in Mesa County, Colorado, IT experts demonstrate how easy it is to switch tens of thousands of votes from Trump to Biden in seconds by simply changing the index number next to each candidate's name. Speaker 1: This is a a backdoor utility called SQL Server Management Studio that is actually installed on the image of the voting system. So is it certified? It is not on the list of certified software. What I'm gonna do first, I'm just gonna pull up the presidential results in Mesa County for that election. And here they are. You can see Biden has 31,000. Trump has 56,000. K. So I'm gonna come up here now, and I'm going to make a quick change. Change that to a two? Yep. I'm changing Trump to a one. Okay. And then I'm going to come up here, and I'm gonna rerun the port. And there you go. Biden, 56,000. Trump, 31,000. So I just flipped the results of the election using a tool that's actually built in to the voting system. And what I did is not even logged. There's no trace of what I just did now. For some reason, the logging of activities by a user that has the password are not retained. Speaker 0: In Pennsylvania on live TV, Trump had 1,690,589 votes, while Biden had 1,252,537 votes. The time was approximately 11:08 Eastern Standard Time. The next interval report shows Trump's votes decreasing to 1,670,631 and Biden's votes increasing to 1,272,495. The time is approximately 11:09PM. Live on CNN, exactly 19,958 votes were switched from Trump to Biden. This means Trump lost 39,916 votes.

During the election, there were damaged mail-in ballots that couldn't be read by scanners. The board decided to duplicate these ballots using pink highlighters. However, the highlighter couldn't be read by the scanners either, so all the duplicated ballots had to be fixed. The solution was to give workers stacks of blank mail-in ballots to individually fill in the correct ovals with a dark pen. This process went on for hours without observation until the observers confronted the deputy commissioner. Eventually, thousands of mail-in ballots were counted this way. This raises concerns about the integrity of the process.

The speakers discuss the flow of ballots and the involvement of a company called Runback. Trucks delivering ballots arrived on the third, then the fourth, and the fifth, continuing for days. The last day of the speaker’s involvement was the tenth, and trucks were still coming in. The ballots were coming from Runback, a company that does high‑speed scanning and printing of duplications, and the speaker mentions military ballots being produced or processed by Runback, though there is uncertainty about exactly what Runback was doing. When asked whether the ballots were printed or scanned off-site, the speaker is unsure. It is stated that all the high‑speed scanning occurs at Runback, and that those ballots go to Runback. There were no observers at Runback, and the speaker had not been called to work there. The question is raised about whether the scanning was done on-site at the Maricopa County structure, but the response indicates that scanning was not on-site and occurred at Runback where there are very high‑speed scanners. The question of whether Dominion equipment was involved is addressed: the ballots being scanned were not related to Dominion. The purpose of scanning the ballots in advance of tabulation on Dominion equipment is then explained: they were duplications of ballots that would not read through the tabulation machines, specifically ballots that came in from military and overseas. However, the speaker notes there were more ballots than just those, with trays of ballots being brought in, and uncertainty remains about where the rest were coming from. The speaker suggests that the remaining questions about the sources of these ballots should be answered by the county employees. In summary, the discussion centers on: a sequence of ballot deliveries over several days; Runback handling high‑speed scanning and duplications off-site; uncertainty about whether ballots were printed or scanned and by whom; the absence of observers at Runback; scanners used were not Dominion; the purpose of off-site scanning was to duplicate ballots that wouldn’t read through the tabulation machines, including military and overseas ballots; and unresolved questions about the origin of additional ballots, which require explanation from county staff. The exchange ends with a note that the remaining questions about the ballots’ origins are for the county employees to explain.

We discovered 1.7 million missing original ballot images from the 2020 election, out of 5 million ballots cast. The issue is with memory card retention rules. Memory cards in scanners hold in-person ballot images, audit logs, and records. The proposed solution is to modify the rule to comply with federal and state election record retention laws. A motion was made and passed to initiate rulemaking procedures on this matter.

In Mesa County, Colorado, IT experts demonstrate how easy it is to switch thousands of votes from Trump to Biden using a backdoor utility in the Dominion election management system. The tool allows them to change the results without leaving a trace. In Pennsylvania, live TV footage shows nearly 20,000 votes being switched from Trump to Biden, resulting in Trump losing almost 40,000 votes. The manipulation occurs within minutes, highlighting vulnerabilities in the voting system.

The speaker discusses the concept of overvoting, which occurs when multiple parties are voted for in a section where only one vote is allowed. They mention scanning a new batch of ballots and scanning them again, even though they have already been scanned once. The speaker remarks that all the ballots went through the system without any apparent issues. They then mention going back to RTR.

In this video, the speakers demonstrate how a USB drive can be used to manipulate voting systems. They explain that election officials may not be aware of the potential misuse of USB drives. The speaker inserts the USB drive into the voting system, running a backdoor utility that is preinstalled. They show that the screen does not display any indication of the manipulation. By executing commands, they change the election results back to the original numbers. The speakers emphasize the simplicity and accessibility of this method, as USB drives are widely known and inexpensive.

The Dominion system has two buckets: the regular bucket and the adjudication bucket. In the regular bucket, votes are treated one way, while in the adjudication bucket, the operator has discretion to do anything they want or apply the ranked choice voting algorithm. Adjudication can be preprogrammed with commands like casting a certain percentage of ballots for specific candidates. The system takes votes and apportions them, rather than counting whole votes. Adjudication can be manual or determined by an algorithm. It's important to understand these two buckets and how they function.

On February 11th, a script overwrote 462 log entries. On March 3rd, the same script overwrote 37,686 log entries. On March 12th, the day before the system was received, 330 log entries were overwritten by the script. The EMS admin account performed these actions. A log file from the Dominion software for results tallying and reporting shows that someone purged all the results for the election. The action was completed successfully, deleting all the files on the NAS directory, which contained all the results and images from the election. An individual ran a program to clear all records in the system used to generate the official results the day before an audit started.