TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

When I started recording ballot numbers and names from mail-in ballots, I noticed they were in sequence, which is unusual. The envelopes had no date, just "November 0-2020." When I questioned this, I was told not to interfere. The ballots were all from the same street in Detroit, with similar signatures and no date stamp. They weren't in the system and were being entered manually. It seemed suspicious.

I'm here to submit my ballot. Is this the deposit box? Yes, your ballot goes in here. It's not electronically counted; it will be secured with others. How can I be sure it's counted? Once it's in the locked box, it will be counted after 8 PM. The computer will read the cards, provided they are filled out correctly. There was a problem with the machine earlier. Occasional jams can happen, but it's not frequent. Thanks for the help. Any other questions? The election board is next door. I think my ballot didn't work because I voted for Trump. Thank you.

We subpoenaed Fulton County for 518,000 ballot images from the recount, not from election day. There are 380,761 missing ballot images from election day. Fulton County has not provided an explanation for this discrepancy. It is important for every vote to have a corresponding ballot image. Translation: We requested ballot images from Fulton County for the recount, not for election day. There are 380,761 missing ballot images from election day that have not been explained. It is crucial that every vote has a corresponding ballot image.

A leaked audio recording reveals Delaware County lawyer Tom Gallagher discussing with election officials the inability to reconcile the 2020 vote due to missing election materials. Gallagher mentions that people with connections asked them to locate missing materials. The discussion includes the legal requirements for attaching tapes to ballots to ensure proper precinct identification. Participants describe difficulties reconciling voter numbers with old books and return balances, and they express concern about balancing used and unused ballots. Election workers feared potential jail time. Additionally, sources allege a video shows Gallagher and James Zieglehoffer discarding paper tapes before a scheduled deposition in active litigation, which is illegal.

Excuse me, how many ballots are you turning in? You're only allowed to submit one ballot per person. Do you have an affidavit for all those? It's the post office. That seems suspicious. Someone is dropping off a large number of ballots in Northampton County right after the office has closed.

The speaker points out several issues with the handling of numbers in the election. The numbers were not stored securely in a sealed bag but in a red canvas bag without a lock. Moreover, they were mixed together, which is against the law. The speaker also accuses Mr. Clark of keeping the media sticks instead of handing them over to Mr. Zach. The speaker advises checking with Mr. Clark as he may still have them. These actions are in violation of the law of Mississippi.

The arrival of paper at the factory is important because it should match what was sent out or greater. Discrepancies could indicate extra ballots. The high-end machines used for printing have clickers that record the exact number of ballots produced. If the clicker count doesn't match what was printed, mailed, or destroyed, there's a problem. The entire process is documented with date and time stamps, employee stamps, and paperwork. When ballots are mailed out, there are records of names, time stamps, date stamps, and financial remittance. The same applies when they are returned or put into drop boxes. Each step has a paper trail with names, dates, and timestamps. However, when all this information is reviewed, it doesn't add up.

In the exchange, concerns are raised about mail-in ballots in Allegheny and Philadelphia counties and how they were counted. Speaker 0 notes that ballots were counted without observers, citing 682,770 ballots observed and asking about the 1,823,148 mailed-out ballots, contrasted with a final count showing 2,589,242 mail-in ballots. The core question is: what explains the roughly 700,000 mail-in ballots that “appeared from nowhere”? Speaker 1 responds that their cyber team uses white-hat hacking techniques to gather publicly available information from the secretary of state’s website, which has been updated as late as 11:16 this morning with provisional and mail-in ballots, though those numbers continue to change. He adds that the 2,500,000 figure is no longer on the website, and it has “just been taken off.” There is no annotation explaining why. Speaker 2 then describes an on-the-ground observation: a deputy sheriff, a senior law enforcement officer, was seen not being observed and walking in with baggies, with USBs being inserted into machines. The witness claims to have personally witnessed this 24 times, with additional witnesses including Democrat poll watchers. They were told by an attorney that every election leaves a couple of USB cards in the voting machines to be brought back by the warehouse manager, but this account is contradicted by law enforcement and other officials. The witness states that 47 USB cards are missing and “they’re nowhere to be found,” and that 32 to 30 cards uploaded were not present in the live vote update. The witness demanded timely live upload of vote results, which showed 50,000 votes; they assert those votes were for Vice President Biden, though they note that identifying who those votes were for should not matter to a computer scientist. Speaker 1 emphasizes that forensic evidence from the computers was not obtained: the procedure would involve turning off the computer, imaging the drive with BitLocker, under law enforcement observation, which would take about an hour for five machines. This forensic imaging was never performed, despite objections three weeks earlier. They later learned that virtually all chain-of-custody logs, yellow sheets, and forensic records in Delaware County were gone; a signing party attempted to recreate the logs with poll workers but was unsuccessful in recovering them all. The discussion concludes with a claim that there are 100,000 to 120,000 ballots, both mail-in and USB, in question, and that there is no remedy or “cure” within the local charter for certifying a presidential vote, leaving the speaker asserting that nobody could certify the vote in good conscience.

The discussion centers on completing an audit of ballots to obtain a count and address concerns about the precinct. The participants emphasize that without counts, they cannot move forward. They insist that the audit piece must be completed first, not an investigation, so that a number of ballots can be established and the overall tally can proceed. Key points raised: - The need to finish the audit to determine how many ballots are in the ballot can, and to move forward with the numbers. “We need to move forward with the audit so we can get the numbers, so we can see how many ballots are here.” - A concern has been raised about the precinct, including the issue of multiple ballots with the very same signature. The team discusses handling this by counting the ballots and later addressing the concern, rather than delaying the process. “we will separate out and count those and add those in. We're there going to be an asterisk saying these ballots have the same.” - There is tension between continuing the presidential race audit and addressing potential irregularities. The instruction given is to complete the audit portion first and then review any issues. “the process right now is for you to put them in the piles where they belong and for the presidential vote and count the presidential votes… finish the presidential race audit, not separate them out, and then we'll move forward from there.” - The officials acknowledge the underlying concern about the precinct and previous issues with county ballots, but reiterate that, at this moment, the priority is to obtain a count and finish the audit. “We understand that there may be possibly an issue with this precinct. We understand that. But what I need for you to do right now is to finish the audit process.” - They clarify that the current activity is not an investigation, and that the aim is to produce a number for how many ballots were in the can when counting began, enabling progress based on the audit results. “This is not an investigation right now… not an investigation, not counting… what I need you to do is complete the audit so we can get a number.” In sum, the participants are focused on completing the ballot-count audit to establish a definitive tally, while acknowledging concerns about signatures and precinct irregularities, and planning to address those concerns after the audit yields a numeric result for the presidential ballots. The priority repeatedly stated is to finish the audit to obtain a count, then proceed with any further review.

I pleaded with multiple law enforcement agencies to collect forensic evidence from the computers to either prove or refute my claims. They could have easily done this by turning off the computers, using a device called a bit blocker to take a forensic image of the hard drive, and reassembling everything. However, this was never done, and all chain of custody logs and forensic evidence in Delaware County have mysteriously disappeared. This leaves around 100,000 to 120,000 mail-in and USB ballots in question, with no solution or remedy. I believe that certifying this vote would be unjustifiable.

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.

The speaker witnessed someone using correction tape inside a tabulator machine, which caused the ballots to get jammed. The tape was placed back in the machine after being peeled off. The speaker explained that if a ballot goes through the machine with the tape on it, the machine won't read anything, and the user can override it. The speaker also mentioned that the ballots had no numbers at the top, but they assumed the machine wouldn't read them and the user could manually input the ticket type. The person operating the machine repeatedly put the same set of 27 ballots in instead of separating them, resulting in an inaccurate count. The speaker explained that the machine doesn't have a way to detect if the same ballot has been inserted multiple times, as the sensor and reader are covered.

A scanner can only scan one dollar per second, but there are 4,000 ballots with the exact same time stamp of November 5th at 11:19:40. This suggests that these ballots may have been inserted and cannot be authenticated. The main question is whether this time stamp, which shows an unbelievable speed of scanning, is from the EMS system and not something we created.

I just finished voting, but there was an issue. When I presented my ID, the clerk informed me that their records showed I had requested, received, and returned a mail-in ballot, which I hadn't done. As a result, I had to cast a provisional vote and sign an affidavit stating I never received or returned an absentee ballot. Now, I need to call a number after election day to check if my vote was counted. It makes me wonder how many others faced similar issues, raising questions about the fairness and reliability of the voting system.

In recounting votes, I've noticed that simply comparing hand counts to machine counts doesn't address the origin of the ballots being counted. Often, we don't even know which precinct a ballot came from, especially when dealing with two-sided ballots. We focus solely on the vote itself without considering the front of the ballot. Additionally, the image quality of these questionable ballots in Pennsylvania and Arizona is not being examined during the recount process.

Speaker 0 asked Speaker 1 to explain what they wanted to get from the board if they had been allowed to continue. Speaker 1 mentioned that since 2019, voters have no way of knowing if their vote was counted properly because they can't read the QR code. Even if the words on the ballot match their vote, the QR code remains unreadable. Speaker 1 believes the board panicked when they were about to discuss this issue.

A lady with blonde braids placed a table at 8:22 AM. The same person who cleared the place out under the pretense of stopping the count also put the table there. Four suitcases came out from underneath the table. A man in red pulled one of the suitcases out. The question is, why are these ballots separate from the others, and why are they only counting them when the place is cleared out with no witnesses? The machines can process about 3,000 ballots an hour, and there were multiple machines for two hours. The question is, how many ballots went through those machines in those two hours when no one was there to supervise, consistent with statutes and rules?

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.

Speaker 0 mentions the possibility of printing out something. Speaker 1 asks about the reason for the uncounted votes. Speaker 2 clarifies that there is no concrete explanation for why those votes were not counted by the machine. Speaker 1 confirms that they don't know why the votes didn't get scanned. Speaker 2 asks if the Dominion Tech guys have figured out the reason, but Speaker 0 says they are not allowed to comment. Speaker 2 points out that it hasn't been confirmed if it was a memory card issue. Speaker 1 agrees and suggests it could be human error. Speaker 0 says the ballots didn't transfer over correctly, but they don't have a definite answer yet. Speaker 2 asks if it could be a software issue, but Speaker 0 refuses to speculate. They conclude that they don't have a pinpointed answer at the moment.

I noticed that the ballot numbers and last names on the absentee and mail-in ballots were in sequence, which is unusual because these ballots should come in different numbers. This raised my suspicion. I asked about the date on the envelopes, but there was only November 0, 2020, with no second number. When I questioned this, the supervisors became angry and accused me of disrupting their work. I didn't want to be kicked out, so I didn't challenge anything further. The ballot numbers were all from the same area, with similar signatures, and there was no date stamp after 0. None of these ballots were showing up in the system and were being manually entered, even though they knew these details wouldn't be in the poll book or system.

The speaker describes observing absentee/mail-in ballots and recording details from the ballots. They wrote down the ballot numbers and the last names of the person named on each ballot. The ballots appeared to be in sequence, which, according to the speaker, should not happen with mail-in ballots, since mail-in ballots come in at different times and numbers. The speaker recalls that when they noticed the numbers were almost next to each other—one in the middle, then another—they became suspicious. The speaker asked the supervisor about this, noting there was not even a date on the envelopes. The envelopes were marked November 2020, but there was no second number or other identifying date visible. When the speaker inquired about the date on a specific envelope, the response was hostile: the supervisors became angry and told them they were not letting them do their job and that the speaker was disturbing them. To avoid being kicked out, the speaker and the others in the room chose not to challenge the process further, since they did not want to be removed and there were only a few people present. The speaker also observed that the sequence of ballot numbers all originated from the same area—Guarded Street in Downtown Detroit. The ballots’ signatures looked alike, and none of the envelopes had dates stamped on them. The envelopes appeared to be missing a second or third date, or any date, and none of the ballots were appearing in the voting system. Additionally, the speaker notes that these ballots were being entered manually, and they asserted that none of these details would be present in the poll book or the system. The overall implication is that there was irregularity in the handling of these absentee ballots, with sequential numbers, indistinct dates, signatures resembling each other, and manual entry outside the expected process, raising concerns about whether the ballots were being processed consistent with standard procedures.

I was surprised to learn that there was no signature verification done for the ballots. I questioned how ballots without signatures were handled, and the response was they were just sent back out. This made me uncomfortable certifying the results.

The speaker emphasizes the importance of looking beyond what is shown on TV or in generic reports about elections. They explain that these are just interpretations and not official counts, making it difficult to prosecute any wrongdoing. To truly address the issue, one must delve into the intricate details of the process. The speaker mentions that they have only mentioned about half of the auditable touch points involved in elections, with many more unknown to the general public. These touch points are all documented with date and time stamps, similar to the 2,000 murals mentioned earlier.

Excuse me, how many ballots are you turning in? You're only supposed to submit one ballot per person. Do you have an affidavit for all those? It's with the post office. That seems suspicious. There's someone in Northampton County dropping off an excessive number of ballots right at the deadline after the office has closed.

We asked Fulton County for all ballot images, but only received about 518,000 for the recount, not the 380,761 from election day. The focus was on the recount, not the original election. It's unclear why the election day images are missing. Shouldn't every vote have a valid image?