reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker discusses the upcoming May 7th state election board hearing regarding the investigation into the 2020 election count in Fulton County, Georgia. They touch on the board's authority to investigate the secretary of state and express a desire to meet with Gabriel Sterling to discuss recount errors. The speaker emphasizes the need for transparency and accountability in election processes.

The speaker questions the evidence presented by elections officials, stating that it has been repeatedly debunked. They suggest inviting the officials back in to provide further evidence. Senator Tillery agrees with the suggestion.

The speaker states they are investigating dangerous and negative consequences with the "best of the best." They claim electronic voting systems have been vulnerable to hackers for a long time and open to exploitation, allowing manipulation of vote results. This vulnerability purportedly reinforces the need for paper ballots nationwide, so voters can have faith in election integrity.

To lower tensions and unite the country, we must investigate election irregularities. Allegations include ballots being backdated in Detroit, late unsealed ballots counted for Democrats, and deceased individuals voting. Whistleblowers in Nevada reported witnessing voter fraud. An election official in Georgia admitted to finding illegal and double voters on the rolls. False claims of fraud are harmful, so we must approach this issue carefully and responsibly.

The speaker discusses the legality of town clerks investigating elections in Michigan and hiring outside parties for investigations. They mention reports from experts that confirm their claims. They accuse the secretary of state and attorney general of Michigan of trying to shut down the investigation and implicate themselves. The speaker explains how Stephanie, funded by the America Project, fought in court to keep the attorney general from taking over the case. They criticize the attorney general for wanting to bring charges against those involved in examining election machines and thumb drives, despite previously instructing to erase the data. The speaker defends the use of expert witnesses and mentions their role as a consultant to the project.

The speaker emphasizes the need to investigate the legitimacy of the election and understand what happened. They express a willingness to work with anyone, regardless of party, to uncover the truth and make improvements. They mention the importance of knowing what laws need to be changed but acknowledge the lack of knowledge about the situation. The speaker concludes by thanking the chairman and Senator Heath.

Speaker 0: The election was stolen. A graph shows people who worked for ES&S, Hart, Dominion Voting Systems, ClearBallot, and Smartmatic, recycling through companies. People who worked at Dominion Voting Systems are entering the political sphere and taking over election offices; one county in Texas, after hiring someone who worked for Dominion, went blue for the first time. The speaker walks through information: Dominion using “Serbian technology with Chinese characteristics.” Huawei Bank is involved; there’s no public board saying Bank of China funds anything, but research on Roaming Networks—a relatively unknown Serbian company until 2013—shows it signed a value-added contract with Huawei Bank. Huawei is “the Bank of China.” Roaming Networks built ICT infrastructure and data centers in Serbia, with owner Nenad Kovac identified as the enterprise partner. Some Roaming Networks information may come off their site after this presentation. Dominion Voting Systems has a corporate office in Serbia; a screenshot of the office and a developer on their site is noted. A Serbian legislative leader said, “I know Dominion Voting Systems back in November. They have an office here.” Dominion started rapidly removing Serbian coders from their site/LinkedIn. Code is built in Serbia for a system used in the United States, using infrastructure funded by China, not just China but the Bank of China. A slide discusses Dominion’s enterprise partnership with Huawei, added to the restricted list on 05/16/2019. Roaming Networks references show Dominion Voting Systems using a pure flash storage solution in Dominion’s data center. A photo of Sacramento shows Dominion hardware coming from China, with a bill of lading from a Chinese supplier to Dominion’s McKinney, Texas office. Testing and approval of Dominion hardware show similarities with Smartmatic; the same hardware with different branding. They claim a “tail” behind the scenes—evidence of connections among ES&S, Hart, Dominion, ClearBallot, Smartmatic, with people cycling through these companies. People who once worked at Dominion are now entering election offices; in Texas, a county that hired a former Dominion employee “went blue” by accident with ES&S involved. The speaker calls out Gina Griswold for commenting on Tina Peters and Mesa, and Matt Crane’s role as Arapahoe County clerk and recorder, now head of the County Clerks Association; Crane’s wife previously worked for Dominion and Sequoia Voting Systems. The speaker asserts a public breach of trust requires an audit; if there’s nothing to hide, audits should restore trust. They argue, whether Dominion is the bad actor or not, removal of logs, altering code, and a “trusted build” are problematic, and emphasize the need for audits and investigations to restore trust in elections. Speaker 1: Indicators: a senior Dominion vice president’s name appears on patents; a software engineer involved in the Wayne County, Michigan tabulation center is connected to the software. Coincidences accumulate, suggesting there is a preponderance of evidence with affidavits across the country. The speaker asks which computer produced certain files analyzed yesterday; whether it came from the central count or precincts. Speaker 0: Answers with a non-answer, noting they imaged the main EMS and the tabulation system; servers in the county coordinate precinct information and house audit reports, cast vote reports, error reports, adjudication reports, and access logs. Thumb drives can contaminate the county and state systems if connected to a machine; it’s not unique to Dominion or voting systems but a general risk. They emphasize avoiding white noise and focusing on facts: Dominion is in Serbia; Huawei Bank funds the enterprise partnership and Serbia-based data centers; code is written in Serbia; imaging shows fingerprints of this. They call for audits, note deviations in Georgia (ballots appearing identical in different batches, a shredder truck before January 20 in Georgia, and a leaky arena water claim later proven to be a leaky toilet), and point to media silence. They argue against accepting the gold standard claim and highlight perceived connections to Soros-funded groups. They stress deviations in state and county behavior, urge audits, and compare the election system to a serial killer—unacceptable to let foreign systems run it. Speaker 2: Adds that with 100 indicators, a pattern emerges; reiterates the need to examine which files came from which computer, and questions the integrity of the central count. Speaker 3: Notes the risk of a non-internet-connected thumb drive introducing malware; emphasizes auditing all machines for that reason.

The speaker believes the Palm Beach Authority should not cede all power to the federal government and that the governor of Florida should exert coequal control, as the event happened in Florida's territory. The speaker claims the federal government is incapable of unbiased investigations. The speaker suggests the state government should back the local government and demand coequal information, and not turn the individual over to the Feds until thoroughly investigated by state and local authorities. The host mentions previous guests from the task force investigating the Butler shooting claimed all evidence was scrubbed, the body cremated, and they were handed an empty bag by the FBI. The speaker agrees, stating the state government doesn't have to turn anything over to the Feds. They can copy everything, such as phone data, vehicle registration, DNA, and run a fully coequal, transparent investigation.

The speaker discussed the upcoming May 7th state election board hearing regarding the investigation into the 2020 election count discrepancies in Georgia. There were discussions about the board's authority to investigate the secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, and his support staff, including Gabriel Sterling. The speaker expressed a desire to meet with Sterling to address errors in the recount efforts. The investigation's importance and ongoing developments were highlighted.

The speaker asserts that the investigation was conducted properly and according to protocol. They claim that regardless of high-level decisions regarding public statements, the investigative work itself was done correctly by the men and women involved. The speaker encourages listeners to be assured that both investigations followed proper procedure.

The speaker discusses the SEB 2023-025 investigation in Georgia, which was delayed but may now proceed due to a new subpoena. There is also mention of ongoing debates regarding the board's authority to investigate the secretary of state. Additionally, the speaker expresses a desire to meet with Gabriel Sterling to discuss election errors. The conversation ends with anticipation for the upcoming May 7th meeting.

A group of state legislators from across the United States is addressing the citizens regarding the 2020 presidential election. They emphasize their constitutional authority to oversee presidential elections and highlight findings from a forensic audit of 2.1 million ballots in Arizona, which they claim reveal significant corruption. They reference sworn affidavits from various states that detail issues of fraud and mismanagement in the election process. Multiple audits and legal challenges have raised concerns about the validity of election results. The legislators assert that all 50 states should undergo forensic audits and thorough canvassing of voters to ensure the integrity of future elections.

A journalist asks about a recent FBI action at the Fulton County, Georgia elections office, where twenty twenty ballots, voter rolls, and scanner images were seized. The journalist notes that the president claimed, “they got into the votes. You're going to see some interesting things happening,” and asks why the president was so involved in an FBI and DOJ raid. A spokesperson responds that the president’s statements do not imply his involvement. He emphasizes that this is a criminal grand jury investigation, and clarifies that there was a search warrant authorized by a federal judge, a magistrate judge in Atlanta, which allowed the FBI to seize the records. The spokesperson notes that the records have been seized by the FBI as part of the ongoing investigation. The journalist presses on what the investigation is about. The spokesperson reiterates that he cannot discuss specifics of any grand jury investigation, but previously stated that election integrity is of the highest importance to the American people, and that the efforts are aimed at ensuring free and fair elections for everyone in the country, Democrats and Republicans alike. The spokesperson adds that they are doing everything possible to uphold election integrity. The journalist mentions that in Georgia, claims of voter fraud related to the twenty twenty ballots have been debunked repeatedly and that there were multiple recounts. The transcript ends without further elaboration on those claims. Key points conveyed: - The FBI seized twenty twenty ballots, voter rolls, and scanner images from the Fulton County elections office. - The president suggested that “interesting things” would occur, prompting questions about his involvement. - A spokesperson denies the president’s involvement and describes the actions as part of a criminal grand jury investigation. - A federal magistrate judge in Atlanta issued the search warrant permitting the seizure; the FBI conducted the seizure. - The investigation’s specifics cannot be discussed, but officials assert a commitment to election integrity and ensuring free and fair elections for all Americans. - The dialogue references prior debunking of voter fraud claims in Georgia and multiple recounts, without presenting new specifics.

In this video, a speaker from Cairo, Georgia addresses the state election board. They mention that in Grady County, they grow cotton, peanuts, and pine trees, which can be used to make paper ballots. The speaker expresses concern about the lack of results from investigations and recommendations regarding election complaints since the 2020 general election. They highlight an incident where Fulton County's vote totals were lower than reported on election night, and recounting did not confirm the original totals. The speaker urges the board to conduct an independent investigation of the Georgia secretary of state to restore confidence in the election process.

The speaker questions whether purging the 2020 election database in February is a standard practice for all elections. The response is uncertain, but they promise to provide an answer. The speaker further asks why data from previous elections was still present on the databases. Again, there is no clear answer, but they assure the congressman that they will find out. The chairman mentions limited server space as a reason for making room for new election data. The speaker raises concerns about the credibility of the recorder, who had criticized Adrian Fontes, the person in charge of the 2020 election. The speaker clarifies that they had a bipartisan board overseeing the election to ensure fairness.

Governor mentioned concerns about the upcoming election and what would make him not accept the results. He stated that if the secretary of state conducts an illegal election, that would be an issue. He hopes that won't happen.

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.

The transcript captures a heated HOA meeting where a homeowner (Speaker 0) rails against the lack of ballots and proper elections for the board. Speaker 0 states, “Not one person in this area has gotten a ballot to vote anybody in. I have been here eight years,” and repeats that at no point has anybody received a ballot to vote for anyone. They urge consultation with “the attorney for the homeowners,” asserting that board members are to be voted in and have a one-year term, insisting, “Not at any point in time. Does anybody here Did you get a ballot to vote for anybody? No.” Speaker 0 demands to finish their point and asks others to stop interrupting. Speaker 1 attempts to clarify, and Speaker 0 challenges their authority, asking, “Are you an attorney?” Speaker 1 acknowledges involvement since day one and asserts, “Since day one of this association, there’s never been an election,” and reiterates, “No. An election.” Speaker 0 adds, “And with that being said,” while Speaker 2 interjects with a question about current actions. Speaker 0 contends that although there may not have been an election, the current group “chose to put yourself on the board,” and claims they will move to a joint meeting and end the matter, but is interrupted. Speaker 1 insists that the meeting is not the appropriate forum for this discussion, stating, “The meeting has started to address what it was here today,” and that it’s a separate meeting if a different discussion is desired. Speaker 0 pushes to proceed immediately. Speaker 2 offers historical context: “If there’s never been an election, there were some board members appointed in the very beginning. Raylon turned it over to a couple people. Then those people just decided … I’m gonna add you.” Speaker 0 emphasizes that by law, board members must be elected, not appointed, and questions the legitimacy of the current board’s authority. “By law, read your laws, go to an attorney. By law, you have to be voted in.” Speaker 1 responds, asking Priscilla what she wants to do, noting that there are four ex-board members in front of them and asking if they should be asked about their elections. Speaker 0 acknowledges they were elected previously but complains about being told they were appointed. They insist on sending out a ballot and state, “Ballot. You are welcome to put yourself up to be on the board,” while indicating that the current board claims there will be no election until April. Speaker 1 suggests that the proper process would involve a formal meeting with notice and decision, while Speaker 0 asserts the desire for the current board to step down, mentioning ongoing issues such as a $100,000 irrigation problem and unresolved bills. The exchange then pivots back to attempting to resume a formal meeting, with Speaker 1 declaring, “We’re back to the meeting we have today.” In sum, the speakers clash over whether elections have occurred, who appointed board members, the proper legal process for board selection, and the appropriate timing for any future elections, with requests to suspends the current board and to conduct formal ballots.

The speaker announced a state-level investigation into potential violations of state law, despite federal involvement. The speaker believes it's necessary to ensure the truth emerges credibly. The speaker expressed concern that the same federal agencies prosecuting Trump are now investigating this matter, suggesting this may not be ideal for the country. However, the speaker acknowledged the federal prerogative while asserting the state's prerogative to conduct its own investigation. Further announcements regarding the state investigation will be made in the coming days.

The speaker states that the best investigators are pursuing election integrity. They claim there is evidence that electronic voting systems have been vulnerable to hackers for a long time and can be exploited to manipulate vote results. This vulnerability allegedly drives the mandate to implement paper ballots across the country, so voters can have faith in election integrity.

The director is awaiting clarification on a reported human error from the state board of elections. Concerns about a flash drive with votes are raised, but the director is unsure if it was read multiple times. Despite past issues, the director defends their oversight of elections. The state board is investigating discrepancies in election results, with canvassing ongoing for provisional and mail-in ballots.

The Governor mentioned concerns about the upcoming November election and what would need to happen for the speaker not to accept the results. The speaker stated that if the secretary of state conducts an illegal election again, that would be an issue, and they hope it won't happen.

I called for a signature audit, but the Secretary of State has not ordered it yet. I believe it should be done, especially considering what we witnessed today. Transparency is crucial, and I urge for it. Hopefully, in the next 24 hours, we will learn more from the legislative hearings and determine the next course of action. The ongoing recount in the state allows for a thorough examination of these matters.

The speaker states that the "best of the best" are investigating election integrity. They claim there is evidence that electronic voting systems have been vulnerable to hackers and exploitation, allowing for the manipulation of vote results. This allegedly supports the mandate to implement paper ballots nationwide, with the goal of restoring voters' faith in election integrity.

We counted Georgia's election ballots three times, confirming no consequential fraud. Despite issues with ballot images and scanning errors, the recount showed similar results to the original count. Doubts remain about double scanning and counting of votes, suggesting potential fraud. The Secretary of State's office conducted an exhaustive investigation, but concerns persist about the accuracy of the results. The Georgia State Election Board is commended for their diligence and transparency in addressing election issues.