TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

We're committed to improving our election processes, advocating for paper ballots, one-day voting, voter ID, and proof of citizenship. We're actively monitoring for election fraud, filing lawsuits when necessary, and ensuring transparency in vote counting. Michelle Swinick discusses election integrity in Maricopa County, Arizona, highlighting discrepancies in ballot counts and the need for a U.S. senator to initiate a hearing. She emphasizes the importance of public engagement to demand accountability and transparency in elections. Swinick presents evidence of significant ballot discrepancies and illegal recounts, urging the public to push for investigations into these issues. She calls for action to restore trust in the electoral process and ensure fair elections moving forward. The discussion underscores the critical role of citizen involvement in safeguarding democracy.

The speaker observed a broken chain of custody in the handling of mail-in ballots, drop box ballots, and Election Day USB card flash drives. They witnessed the voting machine warehouse supervisor uploading USB cards to the machines multiple times without being observed by the proper authorities. The speaker raised their concerns to the deputy sheriff and the Clerk of Elections, noting that the supervisor was carrying baggies and inserting USBs into the machines. This happened over 24 times.

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.

In this video, the speaker discusses voter election fraud in Wisconsin. They mention that the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that drop boxes are illegal, but election commissioner Megan Wolf allowed their use in the 2020 elections without proper approval. The speaker also highlights the high number of absentee votes cast in Milwaukee, with concerns about the lack of video surveillance of drop boxes. They mention an election integrity group identifying ballot traffickers and a surge in indefinitely confined votes due to advice given by Democrat election clerks. The speaker also mentions cases of election fraud in nursing homes and questions raised about the certification of Wisconsin's election results. They conclude by mentioning an election bribery scheme involving Mark Zuckerberg and the Center for Tech and Civic Life.

The speaker obtained a video showing a suspicious drop-off of ballots at a Detroit facility. Local media denied any fraud, but the video contradicts this. The escort car delivering the ballots had a Pennsylvania license plate, raising questions about its origin. A Michigan group counted only 1,400 drop box ballots, yet officials claimed to have received 16,000 ballots after hours. The discrepancy in numbers has sparked concerns about the legitimacy of the additional ballots brought in.

Our current voting systems are complicated and messy. Votes are not reconciled and verified at the precinct level in many states. Instead, they are sent to third party entities or counted at centralized locations without public oversight. Mail-in ballots are not secure and can lead to fraud. We need to return to hand counting at the precinct level to ensure accurate accounting and transparency. This system worked for years before 2000 and is still used in France because it is secure. Our current system invites fraud and distrust, so we must act now to restore faith in our elections. Demand hand counting at the precinct level to stop fraud and build back trust in our elections.

This video shows the only ballot drop box in Cleveland, Ohio, and the only one in Cuyahoga County. The speaker asks someone if they voted for Reagan or Jimmy Carter, but quickly changes the topic.

- Inside the TCF center, Speaker 0 recounts that local media said the events didn’t happen. Patty called on November 4 from inside the TCF, saying: “I just heard that a van dropped off boxes of ballots in the middle of the night,” and she was working there that morning. - They filed a request to obtain the video, which took months to acquire, and they obtained the footage described as a gateway (likely a video) about the incident. They shared the video on Twitter and their site, and as a result they later lost their Twitter account after posting it. - The video shows a lead escort car arriving. Each time, someone adds something to one side, and then the van drives in. The van is said to have entered twice. - Local media, including one of the top reporters, is quoted as saying that this never happened, that he was there all night, and there was no fraud.

The speaker believes some amount of cheating takes place in elections, particularly with mail-in ballots and lack of proof of citizenship, making it hard to prove. Statistically unlikely events occurred, such as the use of Dominion Voting Machines in specific locations like Philadelphia and Maricopa County. The speaker advocates for paper ballots, hand-counted, citing the ease of hacking computer programs. They also support in-person voting with voter ID, which they claim is standard in almost every country with democratic elections. To effectively address fraud, the speaker suggests in-person voting with ID. Given the current situation, they believe a very large margin of victory is needed to overcome potential cheating.

We need to stop mail-in applications and ballots because we don't have the means to control them in the United States. Additionally, drop boxes are causing problems and should be eliminated. Some states will still have drop boxes funded by Zuckerberg for the midterms, while others won't. Georgia, for example, will keep drop boxes but move them inside buildings.

Michigan voter data is described as a state secret that Jocelyn Benson is safeguarding from the federal government, with the speaker claiming she told authorities they can’t have it and contrasting this with the idea of not wanting the federal government to have your social security number. The speaker then alleges that Benson “gives our voter data away” to a nonprofit, and that she has done so since taking office in 2019. The nonprofit identified is the electronic registration information center, ERIC. The claim is not that Benson gives data away to ERIC per se, but that she spends taxpayer money to provide data to ERIC. The speaker contends that on television Benson presents herself as the guardian of voters’ data, while, in reality, she uses public funds to share it. After ERIC receives the voter data, the speaker says it is sent to another nonprofit, the Center for Election Innovation and Research, or CEIR. The common thread alleged between ERIC and CEIR is a liberal operative named David Becker, who is said to have founded both organizations. The speaker asserts that in 2020, Becker’s CEIR gave Benson’s nonprofit $12,000,000 on the eve of the election. The claim continues that Benson used part of this funding to purchase Jocelyn Benson campaign ads. The speaker notes that this year, Lansing Republicans attempted to pull Michigan out of ERIC, as eight other states had already left, but the Republicans could not secure the votes to do so. The transcript suggests that Republicans facing Benson in the governor’s race should make this a campaign issue. It is presented as an easy story on the campaign trail: Jocelyn Benson’s friends obtain Michigan voter data and are paid to manage it, while Michigan taxpayers fund both sides of the lawsuit between Benson and the U.S. Department of Justice. The speaker connects the financial support from CEIR to Benson’s nonprofit with the broader political dynamic involving Benson and the DOJ.

County registrars were authorized to establish drop-off box locations for absentee ballots in the June 9, 2020 elections. This was done by the executive branch, with the involvement of Stacey Abrams, not the legislature. The speaker believes that the biggest fraud occurs with absentee ballots and that drop-off boxes are involved in this. They emphasize the need to put pressure on local governments, board of commissioner meetings, legislators, and the governor to address this issue. The speaker claims that President Trump won Georgia and argues that the ballots collected in drop-off boxes were invalid because they were not designated as precincts by the state legislature. They mention a news report about 43,000 invalid ballots in one county and question whether some counties violated the law by not having drop-off boxes. The speaker blames Brian Kemp for giving in to Stacey Abrams' influence.

In Downtown Detroit at the TCF Center, a video discussion describes what a caller says happened during ballot processing. The account asserts that after precincts had counted ballots and were ready to close, three vehicles—a van, a Chrysler 300, and a Ferrari—arrived at about 4:00 a.m. with a claimed 130,000 ballots. The claim is that every one of these ballots were Biden ballots that had not been delivered to the precinct before its cutoff, constituting a “big irregularity” and suggesting voter fraud. The speakers say this is being contested by the president in a lawsuit for Michigan, with people who allegedly witnessed the event. Speaker 1 adds that back rooms at the facility enabled cars to drive in through a garage door, and that ballots appeared between 10:30 p.m. and 3:30 a.m. Approximately 38,000 ballots were said to have arrived in that window, with a reported count of 61 ballots described as being in USPS boxes. The boxes were not necessarily USPS-delivered; a white van with the city clerk’s emblem appeared to be delivering them, bearing the name Janice Winfrey and related tagline. The implication is that ballots arrived in an unverified, potentially improper manner. Speaker 2 notes possible additional vehicles present at the time and mentions that a mini panel truck with Detroit Elections Bureau regalia and a vehicle ID number was observed, with other people recording license plate information. The lack of verifiable chain of custody is emphasized: there was no confirmed Republican/Democrat presence during transfer, and seals on ballots were not verified. The speaker contrasts this with a suburbs experience where ballots were methodically processed, sealed, and tracked, implying Detroit’s process lacked similar controls. Speaker 3 explains that Gateway Pundit obtained video of the event after a delay, and that local media personnel claimed the event did not occur. The video shows an escort car and a lead car delivering items inside the facility, with the escort car reportedly from Pennsylvania and possibly a rental. The Michigan group, Patty’s group, counted drop-box ballots and reported about 1,340 to 1,400 ballots dropped in Detroit over the last two days. In contrast, after the shutdown, officials allegedly claimed 16,000 ballots were dropped in, with the question of where those additional ballots originated. Speaker 4 reinforces the Michigan group’s tally of roughly 1,340–1,400 ballots from drop boxes in Detroit in the adjacent period and points to the discrepancy between that count and the 16,000 ballots later cited, noting the eight-hour gap after the official closing time and the two separate deliveries to the TCF Center. The overarching claim is that these events indicate irregularities in ballot handling and raise questions about the source and legitimacy of the large ballot influx.

The speaker describes a situation in which registration and voting can occur even when a person does not live in the country, citing an example involving a brother in Pakistan to illustrate the point. According to the speaker, there is evidence of two or three other people who are outside the country voting, as well as people residing outside of the district. This is presented as a factual observation about who has voted, including individuals located abroad and not within the local district boundaries. The speaker then critiques the online voter registration system by characterizing it as an honor system. The claim is that anybody can enter information into the online system to register and vote, relying on the promise of truthfulness. The process alleged by the speaker is described as follows: a person would place information into the system and then simply click a box stating that they are not lying about the information provided. After doing so, the person would receive an email from the secretary of state or a similar official channel in the mail, indicating acknowledgment or thanks for registering to vote, effectively confirming their registration. Following this registration, the speaker notes a procedural consequence: once an individual is on the voter rolls, they are mailed a ballot for each election. In other words, the pattern described is that being on the voter rolls automatically leads to receiving a mailed ballot for every election that occurs, according to the speaker’s account of how the system operates. The speaker emphasizes a continuity of this process across elections, implying that the mailed ballot would be a recurring consequence of enrollment on the voter rolls. Throughout the account, there is an emphasis on what the speaker views as the potential vulnerability or problematic nature of the system. The speaker asserts that the combination of an online registration process that relies on an honor system, the possibility of registering with false or unverified information, and the automatic mailing of ballots to those on the rolls creates a situation that the speaker finds problematic. The overall narrative connects the initial observations about individuals voting from abroad and outside the district to a broader critique of the online registration and ballot distribution processes, underscoring concerns about eligibility verification and the integrity of the voting system as described by the speaker.

In the 2020 election, Maricopa County reported 923,000 drop box ballots, but only 189,167 have documentation, leaving 733,000 unaccounted for. This shows election insecurity. Evidence was given to the attorney general, with all Democrats voting against in committee.

Speaker 0 warns that what you’re doing is extremely dangerous, and questions why it is dangerous. Speaker 1 challenges this by asking why it would be dangerous, and clarifies that they are not saying people are voting in certain places, but that people are currently registered to vote there. Speaker 2 interjects, referencing a recent sweep around Fulton County. Speaker 1 reiterates: they see that people are currently registered to vote in places like empty lots and homeless shelters that closed ten years ago, and asks what the other speaker would do if they became secretary of state to address that. Speaker 0 responds that the other party will have to reply to conspiracy theories. Speaker 1 counters that it is not a conspiracy, describing it as a current situation: people are currently registered to vote there, and it’s possible to purchase voter rolls for $45 to verify this. They insist they are not saying people are voting there, but that people are currently registered to vote there, and they reference Jason as the person who can verify that. They further state they will gladly take the other speaker to see if it’s true, arguing that if someone is running for secretary of state, they are in charge of maintaining the voter rolls. Speaker 0 continues to label the claim as dangerous and as conspiracy theory. Speaker 1 again emphasizes that they are not alleging people are voting there, but that people are currently registered to vote there. They reiterate that it took $45 to purchase the voter rolls, and that the same could be done for Fulton County. They mention specific locations where people are allegedly registered to vote: empty lots and a MARTA bus station, and ask whether the other speaker will address that instead of labeling it conspiracy theories. They reference the existence of a death address, 205 Elm Street Northwest, described as an empty lot that one could visit to verify the claim. They ask whether the other speaker, as an elected official who might become secretary of state, cares about ensuring clean voter rolls in a county considered one of the most important in the United States. Speaker 0 maintains that the other party’s approach is dangerous. Speaker 1 repeats the core assertion: it’s not a conspiracy, it’s a current condition where people are registered to vote in empty lots, a MARTA bus station, and other locations, and stresses that the issue is about maintaining clean voter rolls. The exchange cycles through insistence that “people are currently registered to vote there,” the availability of voter-roll data for verification, and the imperative for someone who could be secretary of state to address the integrity of the rolls rather than dismissing the claim as conspiracy theory.

The speaker claims that a video shows a van dropping off boxes of ballots at the TCF center. They put the video on their website and tweeted about it, resulting in the suspension of their Twitter account. The video shows a lead car and an escort car arriving, with people inside adding something each time. The van enters twice. However, a local reporter who was present all night denies any fraud or wrongdoing.

This graph shows Wisconsin vote totals, particularly a spike at 3:30 AM that raises questions. The issue stems from how absentee ballots are counted. I support allowing counties to count these ballots the day before, with equal observers from both parties, to avoid such sudden increases. This spike likely comes from Milwaukee Central Count, which faced significant operational issues, including a failure to seal a power outlet box, requiring the reprocessing of 30,000 ballots. Despite the chaos, election observers believed the results would be legitimate, though heavily favoring Democrats. A major concern in Wisconsin is the lack of maintenance on voter rolls, with 7.5 million registered voters compared to only 3.6 million eligible voters.

If an election is close, Commonwealth will win by cheating, fortifying, and stealing ballots. Elections are not perfectly clean, but changes were done in plain daylight. To improve elections, run them like other Western democracies: one-day voting, practically no absentee ballots, and stronger voter ID. This used to be more common in the U.S., but has decayed over the last 20-30 years. Results were available on election day 30-40 years ago, which no longer happens.

The speakers discuss alleged irregularities during the 2020 election at the TCF Center in Detroit, including the handling of ballots and intimidation tactics. They highlight the placement of pizza boxes to block observation, changes made to the facility, and the need for accountability. They urge viewers to get involved in their plan to prevent election fraud in the future. Translation: The speakers talk about issues during the 2020 election at the TCF Center in Detroit, such as ballot handling and intimidation tactics. They mention the use of pizza boxes to obstruct observation, modifications to the facility, and the importance of accountability. They encourage viewers to participate in their initiative to prevent election fraud in the upcoming elections.

According to the speaker, Michigan and Wisconsin told citizens they would monitor drop boxes with surveillance cameras, but they did not. The speaker believes cameras cannot be relied upon and that the belief drop boxes would be monitored is not to be believed. Through the Vote is working with sheriffs to identify areas where sheriffs would allow them to grant camera equipment for monitoring that can be livestreamed. The speaker believes transparency is the best way to alleviate anxiety about drop boxes being open to anything. Making it visible and public is how they hope to push back this general election cycle.

Do any Democrats want to explain how this isn't election fraud? In New York, voters don’t need to show ID to vote, except for first-time voters. This means anyone can claim to be someone else and vote without verification. It’s concerning that ballots can be received a week after the election, delaying certification and allowing late ballots to influence results. A secure election should have all votes counted by election day. Additionally, why request a mail-in ballot if you’re just going to drop it off in person? How can poll workers verify identity if ID isn’t checked? This raises serious questions about election integrity. Remember to vote early and in person, and ensure your ballot remains secure.

Suzanne, welcome. We need to discuss election security as we approach election day. Early voting has already begun in many states. It's crucial for Americans to recognize that election officials have been preparing for this moment for years, ensuring the safety and security of voting locations. Voters should feel confident about their safety and the integrity of the voting process. While there are concerns about the political climate and potential threats, it's important to emphasize the efforts made by state and local officials to protect the election process.

I work at the Traverse City post office, where my boss instructed us to collect ballots, stamp them with the previous day's date, and send them out. This seems like an attempt to allow late votes, which goes against Michigan law. I decided to speak out because it felt corrupt and wrong. My message to other postal workers is to report any suspicious activity. I am concerned about retaliation, but I believe in standing up for integrity. When I reached out to my boss for comment, he hung up on me.

I sent my concerns to the Secretary of State before the election, expecting them to forward it to the right people. After the election, I followed up with my post-election concerns, but I haven't received a response from the Secretary of State. I attended a Board of Elections meeting last week and planned to testify about securing the ballots. However, I was muted just 15 seconds into my presentation.