reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker noticed irregularities with the absentee ballots. The ballot numbers were in sequence, which is unusual for mailed-in ballots. The speaker also discovered that the envelopes lacked a date and the ballots were all from the same area. The signatures were similar, and there were no date stamps. Additionally, the ballots were not showing up in the system and had to be entered manually. When the speaker questioned these issues, they were met with resistance from the supervisor. Despite wanting to stay in the room, the speaker chose not to challenge further.

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.

The speaker shares their experience with a whistleblower who gave them four notes regarding ballot discrepancies. They describe witnessing ballots with different signatures being entered into the system and stacks of 50 ballots being put through tabulators multiple times. The speaker mentions the supervisors preventing them from getting closer to the tabulators and the issue of signing in but not out. They also mention the presence of only Biden's name on duplicated military ballots and express their belief that the election was fraudulent.

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.

The speaker expresses their intention to vote for Jason Shaw and confirms their ballot. They discuss the process of adjudication and admit to voting for someone who did not vote. The speaker, who is the election supervisor, mentions deciding to count only one candidate in the Trump and Biden race. They then express their preference for Biden and complete the ballot accordingly. They proceed to decide that a particular ballot should be left blank. The speaker confirms that they have scanned the same package multiple times. The transcript abruptly ends with the speaker mentioning having more to do.

An observer in the duplication room witnessed the preparation of a new ballot because the original was soiled. The observer read a Trump Republican ballot to their Democratic partner. When the partner entered it into the system, the ballot defaulted to a Biden Democratic ballot on the screen. This was reported to supervisors, and others claimed to have witnessed the same manipulation. No corrective action was communicated. The next day, the observer was scolded for saying the machines were not working correctly and was told not to discuss anything. Many people were threatened with being removed from the room or not being allowed to work there again if they spoke out. The observer believes it is their duty to speak the truth.

The speaker describes irregularities observed in absentee/mail-in ballots. They claim that the ballot numbers and the last names on the ballots were in sequence, which should not happen with mail-in ballots because those ballots are supposed to arrive at different times and cannot be sequential like 2-2-3-2 next to 2-2-3-3. This pattern triggered the speaker’s concern, leading them to think something was wrong. The speaker states they began noticing that the numbers were almost adjacent to each other, with one hovering around the middle. This prompted them to raise questions about the process. They then asked the supervisor for clarification, but the supervisor reacted angrily, saying, “you’re not letting us do our job. You’re disturbing us.” Feeling hesitant to push the issue further for fear of being kicked out and wanting to stay in the room due to a lack of other observers, the speaker chose not to challenge the process more than they already had. They allege that the sequence of ballot numbers came from the same area, specifically Goddard Street in Downtown Detroit, and that the signatures on those ballots were all alike. The speaker notes several additional anomalies: envelopes had no date stamp, only the word “November 2020” without a more specific date, and there was no second or third numbering visible. They observed that none of these ballots were coming up in the voting system; instead, they were being entered manually. The speaker claims that the poll book or the system would not reflect these details, implying that the ballots were processed outside the normal electronic recordkeeping. In summary, the speaker alleges a pattern of sequential ballot numbers and similar signatures associated with absentee ballots from a single street area, envelopes without proper dating, and manual entry into the system rather than through standard digital processing, with the supervisor resisting questions about these irregularities.

The speaker discusses an incident where there were errors in the vote count for Biden and Trump. They explain that the voting machine generated a high number of errors, which were then sent for adjudication. The rate of ballots needing adjudication was 68%, much higher than the federal allowable rate of 1 in 125,000. The speaker suggests that this program is designed to generate errors and manipulate votes. They also mention that on November 4th, all system files related to adjudication were deleted. This is seen as a significant issue.

A poll worker states that while observing the duplication of a spoiled ballot, she read a Trump Republican ballot to her partner, but the system defaulted to a Biden Democratic ballot when entered. She and others reported witnessing the same manipulation to supervisors. The witness says she was scolded for suggesting the machines were not working correctly and was told not to discuss what was happening. She also claims many people were threatened with removal from the room or job if they spoke out. She believes it is her duty to speak the truth.

In the duplication room, the speaker and their partner observed a new ballot being prepared because the original one was damaged. They read a Trump Republican ballot, but it automatically changed to a Biden Democratic ballot on the screen. They reported this manipulation to the supervisors, but were not informed of any corrective action. The next day, the speaker was scolded by a supervisor for questioning the machines. They were told not to discuss the issue, as others had been threatened with suppression and removal from the room. The speaker believes it is their duty to speak the truth.

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 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.

The speaker expresses their intention to vote for Jason Shaw and confirms their ballot. They discuss the process of adjudication and admit to voting for someone where no vote was cast. The speaker, who is the election supervisor, mentions deciding which candidate to count in the Trump and Biden race. They express their preference for Biden and disregard votes for the other candidate. They proceed to mark a ballot as blank and discuss the ability to scan a ballot multiple times. The speaker mentions scanning the same package multiple times and receiving additional ballots later. The transcript ends abruptly.

As a poll challenger at the TCF Center, the speaker witnessed a ballot with straight party votes for both the Democrat and Republican parties. Despite no other marks on the ballot, a poll worker wanted to give it to the Democrats, which is illegal. The speaker challenged this and sought the supervisor's opinion, who also favored the Democrats. The speaker questioned why the ballot couldn't be given to the Republicans instead, leading to the supervisor yelling and instructing the poll worker to push the ballot through. The speaker also observed irregularities, such as ballots arriving at night and inquiring about tabulation numbers. They express concern about the fairness of elections and the need for action to restore trust in the process.

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.

The speaker shares their experience with the election process, mentioning receiving four notes with incorrect dates. They describe witnessing three individuals entering ballots into the verified voter system, and one person, later identified as Jesse Jacobs, showing them a signature on a laptop screen that didn't match the signature on the ballot. The speaker also claims to have seen stacks of 50 ballots being put through tabulators multiple times. They mention the supervisors keeping them at a distance from the tabulators and not allowing them to get closer. The speaker notes that only Biden's name was selected on duplicated military ballots, with no down-ballot selections for Trump. They express their belief that the election was fraudulent.

This is the duplication room. I observed the preparation of a new ballot because the original was soiled and wouldn't go through the tabulators. I read a Trump Republican ballot, and when it was entered, the system defaulted to a Biden Democratic ballot. We reported this to supervisors, and others confirmed they witnessed similar issues. We were not informed of any corrective actions taken. The next day, the supervisor reprimanded me for raising concerns about the machines, and I was told I could not discuss the situation. Many were threatened with being removed from the room if they spoke up. I feel it is my duty to share the truth.

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.

Multiple witnesses reported that ballots were reversed, affecting around 50-70 votes within the first hour of polling. The problem persisted throughout the day, with the voting machine warehouse supervisor, James Savage, identified as the source. Savage, a high-level Democrat operative, was seen plugging v drives into the computer system, potentially altering votes. Another witness observed Savage inserting USB drives into voting machines days after the election, allegedly flipping 50,000 votes. This manipulation was deemed crucial as it controlled the election outcome.

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.

In Georgia, a poll worker named Ruby was caught on Instagram live secretly handling absentee ballots after the media and other poll workers were told to leave State Farm Arena. Ruby and a few others stayed behind, pulling out boxes of ballots from under a table and distributing them to different counting stations. Meanwhile, in Fulton County, Georgia, five individuals are still working late into the night to scan and tabulate absentee ballots. A video shows Ruby and other workers running the same stack of ballots through the machine multiple times. Notably, there is a significant increase in Biden votes after this tabulation.

In the duplication room, the speaker witnessed a new ballot being prepared because the original one was damaged. However, when a Trump Republican ballot was entered into the system, it automatically switched to a Biden Democratic ballot. The speaker reported this manipulation to the supervisors, but it is unclear if any action was taken. The next day, the speaker was scolded by a supervisor for questioning the machines' accuracy and was warned not to discuss the issue. The speaker believes it is their duty to speak the truth.

Two Clark County Technical employees revealed that votes on voting machines and USB drives changed overnight. They were only allowed a visual inspection of the USB drives and denied a forensic examination.

A senior law enforcement officer witnessed unauthorized individuals inserting USBs into voting machines multiple times. Despite demands for forensic evidence collection, no action was taken. Chain of custody logs and records in Delaware County are missing, leaving 100,000-120,000 ballots in question with no remedy available. The speaker believes certifying the vote would be unconscionable. Translation: A senior law enforcement officer saw unauthorized people inserting USBs into voting machines multiple times. Despite requests for forensic evidence collection, no action was taken. Chain of custody logs and records in Delaware County are missing, leaving 100,000-120,000 ballots in question with no solution available. The speaker believes certifying the vote would be unethical.