TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Who determined the number 420,987,987 regarding failed signatures from the 2020 election? That figure comes from analyzing a quarter of the 1,900,000 mail-in ballots in Maricopa County. We had 150 trained workers review the envelopes based on the secretary of state's guidelines, examining each voter record individually. After analyzing 25% of the ballots, we extrapolated the data to arrive at the final number. It's important to note that this analysis only pertains to Maricopa County, which had over 2 million ballots in total, with around 1.9 million being mail-in votes. Yes, that is correct. Thank you. Proceed.

The speaker points out duplicate ballots in the video, showing examples where the word "Republican" is written the same way on different ballots. They have a total of 62 images showing similar instances. The batch numbers for the duplicate ballots are provided as well. It is clear that the same batch was scanned multiple times, resulting in duplicate ballots.

In the 2020 Maricopa General Election, 120,867 ballots, or 6% of the total, were compromised through forced adjudication. This represents 9 times the deciding outcome of the election. The compromise was an intentional and avoidable paper and ink hack, where control over the ballot stock was necessary. The use of Sharpie pens, which were encouraged for the first time in history, combined with inferior ballot paper, caused bleed-through votes that confused the scanning machine. This allowed for extra votes to be counted, leading to potential election manipulation. The net effect of this hack in Maricopa County was approximately 120,867 compromised ballots.

I found that there were approximately 25,000 ballots in Maricopa County that were not printed from the official Dominion PDF ballot. These ballots had imperfections in the lines and circles, unlike the perfect PDF printing. The imperfections were consistent across all the ballots, suggesting they were not genuine. These 25,000 questionable ballots alone exceed Joe Biden's margin of victory by over double.

In my examination of the photographs, I found that there were approximately 5,000 different ballots produced by the election subcontractor for each zone or district in Maricopa County. These ballots were specific to the issues relevant to each area. However, I discovered that around 25,000 ballots were not printed from the official Dominion PDF ballot. These ballots had imperfections in the lines and breaks in the circles or ovals, which were consistent across all of them. These 25,000 unidentifiable ballots alone represent more than double the margin of Joe Biden's 10,457 vote lead.

There are two batches of votes being examined. The speaker points out that there are identical markings on different ballots, suggesting duplication. They show examples of the same markings and even a dot in the same spot. The speaker mentions having a total of 62 images, but didn't go through all of them. The numbers of the batches are not remembered, but it is clear that duplicate ballots were scanned multiple times.

The speaker asks who determined the number of failed signatures in the 2020 election. Speaker 1 explains that their organization reviewed a quarter of the 1,900,000 envelopes from the election using 150 trained workers. They followed the guidelines in the secretary of state manual and analyzed each voter record individually. The statistics from the first 25% of the ballots were extrapolated to determine the final number, which is specific to Maricopa County. Speaker 0 acknowledges that Maricopa County alone had over 2 million ballots, with about 1.9 million of them being mail-in ballots. Speaker 1 confirms this and the conversation continues.

We found around 25,000 ballots in Maricopa County that were not created from the usual PDF used for elections. The ballots are tailored to different neighborhoods and come in English and Spanish versions. These ballots are pre-made for mail-in voting and early voting locations. However, we discovered that the quality of these pre-made ballots was significantly lower than expected, indicating a potential issue with the printing process.

Approximately 25,000 ballots were not created from the usual PDF format for the election process in Maricopa County. These ballots are tailored to specific geographical areas to account for different voting preferences. The ballots are created in advance in PDF format for mail-in and early voting convenience. However, the quality of the printed ballots in this case was significantly lower than expected, indicating a problem with the printing process.

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.

Out of the 1.9 million ballot envelopes, around 10% were mismatched according to one calculation, while another calculation showed a 12.7% mismatch. This means there were more than 236,763 mismatched signatures on ballot envelopes and over 163,458 mismatches on early votes. Taking the smallest number, 127,186, which is more than 7 times the margin of victory in the governor's race, it is projected that there were more than 7 times the margin of victory in mismatched signatures in 2022. Besides signature mismatches, there were other failures in Maricopa County in 2020. This is summarized from Ms. Bush's presentation and Dr. Daugherty's declaration.

Approximately 25,000 ballots were not created from the PDF. The PDF files used for preprinted and vote center ballots are similar, with minor differences in wording. The same configuration and layout are used, but some areas may have extra words. The speaker used an acetate overlay to mark breaks in the circle lines on the computer screen, which were consistent across multiple ballots. This indicates that the anomalies were not due to poor printing but rather degradation of the image over time. The anomalies included breaks in lines, unusual formations of characters, and jagged vertical and horizontal lines. These anomalies were found in many ballots, suggesting a consistent printing issue. The degraded print quality was observed in early ballots as well.

The speakers assert that there is evidence of direct access to the Antrim County election management system (EMS). In the forensic images, they note that on November 5 an anonymous user logged onto the EMS remotely and performed actions with escalated privileges, making changes to the database during attempts to retabulate the election. They describe this as a major development, because it demonstrates that the machines were accessed remotely, and crucially, that the remote access was by an anonymous user who possessed elevated privileges within the system. They present this as a significant point for those who oppose forensic auditing or who are against non-forensic reviews. They also reference visible features on ballots, specifically the black boxes along the side of the ballot. The ballots reportedly contain 59 of these black boxes. In the forensic images, they indicate that certain blocks—numbers 15, 18, 28, 41, and 44—were intentionally modified. The described modifications concerned the height, width, and overall shape of these blocks, with the stated purpose of generating errors. Regarding the consequences of these modifications, the narrative claims that by altering these specific blocks, errors were created that led to rejections of Republican ballots. In other words, ballots cast for Donald Trump that were processed through the machine allegedly faced a higher likelihood of being rejected due to these block modifications. The asserted outcome is that such ballots were rejected at a rate of 20% more than ballots cast for Joe Biden.

The speakers observed irregularities in the ballots, suspecting that they were not filled out by hand but rather printed. They noticed that the bubbles were perfectly filled and not aligned correctly. The paper used for the ballots was very thin, with some ballots having more than 50% missing or torn off. This raised concerns as it seemed intentional and could affect the voters' intent. The speakers emphasized that someone else was determining the voters' choices, effectively voting on their behalf.

Approximately 25,000 ballots were not created from the PDF used for the election process. The election provider creates specific ballots for different geographical areas. In Maricopa County, there were over 5,000 different permutations and combinations of the ballots, with a Spanish version available for each. These ballots are created in advance as some are sent out by third parties and for early voting. However, the quality of the ballots in this group is significantly worse than the PDFs that are printed on demand or by the regular provider.

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.

Speaker 0 presents a sequence of figures regarding Maricopa County’s 2020 election and asserts inconsistency between tallies and ballots. He begins: there were 2,595,272 registered voters; 2,089,512 voted at the close of business through election night and all counting; yet there were only 1,923,693 ballots existing. He notes, “They called the election at 2,089,512 votes,” but emphasizes that the closing canvas shows a different number, counting the actual codes on paper rather than pieces of paper, yielding 1,923,693 numbers that show up. After post-adjudication, he lists key observations. By the time voting closed, 165,819 ballots were missing, which he states is 7.94% of the votes in 2020, and they could not explain where they were. However, about a month later in Arizona, a new total was produced: 2,086,959, still leaving 2,553 ballots missing as of that adjustment. He notes that Biden was said to have won by 10,500 votes. He then describes a process he calls the “time hack,” alleged to have been used to gain extra counting time—a practice he claims is new to 2020 and has continued in subsequent elections. He asserts that they “picked up, i.e., manufactured 163,266 ballots that never existed.” He questions how ballots could enter the system after the fact if they did not exist beforehand, asserting this as evidence of manipulation. To support the claim, he cites machine outputs: “Maricopa printed 04/7968 ballots for Maricopa,” while there were only 2,595,272 registered voters, yet 4,027,968 ballots printed. He states these numbers come directly from the machines and argues that no one scrutinizes them deeply enough. He asks why Maricopa would print 1,432,696 overprints, suggesting that to fabricate missing numbers, “backwards ballots” are needed to fill those gaps during the time hack. The argument continues that ballots must be suspended from hitting the bottom line—“don’t let them hit the bottom line”—and, once the numbers are known, could be replaced with whatever is needed. He implies that such suspended ballots are not present in either the pre- or post-audit tallies. Finally, he asserts that a proper audit would have all numbers cross-referencing across every manifestation; otherwise, the cross-referencing would reveal the inconsistencies. The overall gist is a claim of missing ballots, late adjustments, a large number of overprints, and a so-called time hack used to manipulate counts, with an emphasis on the need for cross-referenced auditing.

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.

Approximately 25,000 ballots were not created from the PDF used for the election process in Maricopa County. The election provider customizes the ballots based on geographical areas to ensure voters are selecting the appropriate candidates. There are over 5,000 different permutations and combinations of these ballots, which are also available in Spanish. The reason for creating these ballots in advance is to accommodate third-party mail-in ballots and early voting options. However, the quality of the printed ballots in this group is significantly lower than what would be expected from a PDF. They appear to be degraded compared to on-demand or third-party printed ballots.

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.

Key points from the testimonies: - There is a contention that ballots were run through the counting process multiple times, possibly thousands, with Speaker 0 noting statements that ballots could have been counted up to 30,000 times. When examining the poll book and comparing it to the votes cast, it is asked whether the numbers would align with the total votes from Detroit. - Speaker 2 asserts that the poll book is "completely off," with Speaker 3 estimating an error of over 100,000 in the poll book. A Downriver resident explains arriving at 3:40 a.m. due to 38,000 ballots that were “ride here” and “sitting over there and getting counted,” framing this as an eye-opening revelation about hypocrisy. - Security measures are described as unusual: Speaker 3 notes that windows are being taped up so challengers cannot see in, or out, raising questions about transparency. - Speaker 4 describes observing that none of the names on ballots were being scanned from the ballots into electronic poll books; instead, names appeared only on supplemental sheets. They note electronic poll books were updated on Sunday, November 1, implying that thousands of new ballots would have had to be registered on November 2 or 3. The speaker began writing down names after ballots were scanned but was obstructed by five individuals, including a poll worker, a supervisor, an uncredentialed person, a Democrat challenger, and a top ABCB leader, according to their affidavit. The speaker questions whether 30,000 to 40,000 new voters could have been legally signed up in two days. - Speaker 5 reports ballots that do not belong to anybody and do not appear in voter registration. They describe ballots with no names attached and note attempts to reevaluate them by placing them in a box. Multiple ballots show several different numbers. - Speaker 6 explains that, on the tables, ballots are accompanied by a computer screen showing which ballot it is. Sometimes a ballot has no name, but the registration file shows a person born in 1921 registered long before that year (1900), suggesting anomalies. The speaker asks what is wrong with being born in 1921, while Speaker 5 emphasizes a registration dating to 1900. - Speaker 7 lists egregious items: not allowed to perform duties, GOP challengers obstructed, procedures not followed, backdating ballots from November 4 to November 2, and data entered into computers for mail-in ballots with dates of birth like 01/01/1900, absent from electronic poll books or paper supplement books prior to that. They claim dead people were voting and reference a list of 17,327 Michigan voters over 80 who voted in 2020 and were found in obituaries online. This speaker calls the election described as the most important in their lifetime and in the republic’s history. - Representative Johnson is also mentioned, with a prompt to question the turnout rate, hinting at a purported turnout of 120%. Overall, the testimonies allege discrepancies between poll books and ballots, improper registration, backdated or misdated ballots, ballots lacking identifying information, obstructions to challengers, and possible participation of non-existent or deceased voters, culminating in claims of a highly irregular election process.

Eric Spakin, a forensic chemist and document analyst, examined ballots from the Arizona audit. He found that approximately 25,000 ballots did not match the official Dominion PDF printing, showing imperfections in their lines. This discrepancy exceeds Joe Biden's victory margin of 10,457 votes. Additionally, Spakin noted a statistical anomaly where 61 groups of 200 ballots showed over 90% support for one candidate, with 58 favoring Biden and only 3 favoring Trump. This suggests potential manipulation in sorting ballots. Arizona's early voting process allows ballots to be counted weeks before election day, raising concerns about election integrity and the need for safeguards to ensure accurate results that reflect voters' choices.

The speaker asks who determined the number of failed signatures in the 2020 election. Speaker 1 explains that their organization reviewed 25% of the 1,900,000 envelopes from the election and analyzed each voter record individually. They extrapolated the statistics from the first 25% to determine the final number, which is specific to Maricopa County. Speaker 0 points out that Maricopa County alone had over 2 million ballots, and their group analyzed 25% of the mail-in ballots to arrive at the 420,987 failed signature verification number. Speaker 1 confirms this.

The speaker noticed a batch of absentee ballots that stood out because they were in pristine condition, unlike the others which were worn. These ballots had no folds and felt different. One ballot had a white eclipse in the bubble where it should have been filled. As they sorted the ballots, they realized that a significant number of them were exactly the same, with no folds. One ballot in the stack was also misaligned. Additionally, instead of the usual 100, this batch had 110 ballots, which was unusual.

I found that there were 5,000 different ballots created for specific districts in Maricopa County. Additionally, approximately 25,000 ballots did not match the official Dominion PDF ballot, with consistent imperfections around an oval on each one. These 25,000 unidentifiable ballots alone exceed Joe Biden's 10,457 vote margin.