TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The speaker discusses real-time election data from SIDL in multiple states, highlighting oscillations and deletions in vote counts. They question the accuracy of projections and media calls, emphasizing the need for transparency and accountability in the election process. The speaker also mentions legal challenges and concerns about the media influencing election outcomes.

In a local county commissioner race, the Dominion machine results showed Lorne Alexander with 34.67%, Marshall Orson with 41.35%, and Michelle Long Spears with 23.98%. Since no candidate reached 50%, a runoff was needed. Spears found precincts where she received zero votes, including her own. A hand recount revealed discrepancies, with Spears gaining 3,620 votes. The hand count showed 2,810 more votes than the machines reported, raising concerns about the machines' accuracy. This highlights the need for trustworthy voting systems. If Spears hadn't raised concerns, the discrepancies may have gone unnoticed. Translation: In a local election, the Dominion machines initially showed Lorne Alexander and Marshall Orson leading, but Michelle Long Spears raised concerns after receiving no votes in some precincts, including her own. A hand recount revealed significant discrepancies, with Spears gaining thousands of votes. This raised doubts about the accuracy of the machines and the need for reliable voting systems. Without Spears' intervention, the issues may have gone unnoticed.

We demonstrated how easily election machines can be hacked, raising concerns about the limited number of companies controlling voting technology. 43% of American voters use machines with security flaws, and some states lack a paper trail to verify results. The lack of transparency in cybersecurity practices is alarming.

The speaker claims that real-time Edison data reveals election data manipulation. According to the speaker, Seidl receives raw election data directly from election officials in at least nine states. The speaker alleges that an additive process should show more votes, not deletions, in each interval report. However, a video of Edison reports allegedly shows pauses, oscillation, and deletions in total, in-person, and mail-in votes. The speaker claims this is the algorithm trying to figure out the math problem. The speaker points to North Carolina and Georgia counties as examples, noting Seidl directly contracts with Georgia. The speaker then plays a clip of someone discussing estimated vote percentages dropping, suggesting the reported results are not actual results. The speaker questions the calling of races with razor-thin margins, particularly Arizona, based on projections and alleged impossible data anomalies. The speaker asserts that historically, those counting votes called races, but now machines and news outlets do, deterring challenges.

The discussion centers on the integrity of the 2020 election processes and how Georgia’s handling of audits and recounts could shape reforms for 2026. Speaker 0 argues that ensuring elections represent the will of the people is fundamental, noting that Trump and his allies made a spectacle in 2020 by pursuing audits and recounts and even the Capitol insurrection, yet Georgia, among other states, would not have allowed Trump to win even without Georgia’s results. They claim Democrats and progressives avoided touching the issue in 2024 despite Trump’s unexpected nationwide sweep, and criticize the inability to conduct a proper recount. Speaker 1 warns that Trump’s team is likely to present ballots and photographs from 2020 to claim irregularities, arguing that there were thousands of irregularities in Fulton County, with miscounts and ballot manipulation possible, though there is no evidence that these irregularities would have changed the Georgia result. They contend that irregularities occurred both ways and tended to offset, but many records were destroyed and the recount and audit lacked quality. The speaker asserts that 2026 must avoid untrustworthy machines and inadequate audit/recount processes. The speakers discuss the possibility that Trump’s supporters will use information from the DOJ to misrepresent the facts, stating that even if facts were presented, they would expose known errors in the certified processes. They allege that ballots were counted multiple times during the recount, including counting some ballots two or three times and even introducing fake test ballots to force outcomes. Marilyn is cited as noting that a Barack Obama appointee judge confirmed the unreliability of Dominion machines, and that a demonstration at DEF CON Voting Village showed how easily a Dominion machine could be hacked. Jessica is referenced as discussing Phil Davis, a pro-Trump election integrity figure who admitted that Biden won Georgia despite his broader views. The point is to emphasize that, even among election integrity experts with conservative leanings, there is belief that Biden won Georgia. The conversation returns to Raffensperger, who selected the machines and the audit/recount method, spending approximately $150 million on machines and avoiding transparency about errors. The guests argue that the law required a hand count at tables with representatives from both campaigns and the clerk, instead of a machine-only recount. Bypassing this process enabled the perception of fraud and contributed to the January 6 insurrection’s fuel in Georgia. A key lesson for 2026, they assert, is to implement a transparent process with hand counts and representative participation at counting tables, preventing the bypass of proper procedures and reducing the political pressure that distorts outcomes. They critique the atmosphere surrounding the 2020 aftermath as vilifying and pressure-filled, predicting a similar environment in 2026 unless genuine transparency and nonpartisan verification are pursued.

Georgia owes President Donald J. Trump an apology for election fraud. Evidence shows 17,852 votes were counted without ballot images, and 3,930 ballots were scanned and counted twice intentionally. The process involved randomly selecting and rescanning ballots on different days. This deliberate duplication was not an administrative error but human intervention, constituting election fraud. The speaker urges Secretary Raffensperger to investigate independently.

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.

The speaker discusses cybersecurity concerns in the election system, alleging that votes are stored on servers in Germany and could be manipulated by hackers. They point to suspicious vote count changes in swing states and highlight vulnerabilities in the software that could allow for vote manipulation. The speaker questions the transparency of the election process and calls for investigations into potential fraud. In Georgia, a hand recount of all ballots was announced following demands from the Trump campaign.

New evidence suggests that there was no voting machine election audit performed in Georgia, despite claims by the Secretary of State. This is concerning because Georgia played a crucial role in the 2020 election. A public comment during a state election board meeting revealed that there is little to no evidence that the audit actually took place. In addition, Georgia election workers are suing Giuliani and seeking to bar him from making public statements about the election. Surveillance footage shows workers scanning the same stack of ballots multiple times and continuing to count after observers had left. The video evidence and accounts from the 2020 election point to clear election fraud, yet there seems to be a lack of evidence to support further investigation.

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.

The speaker discusses issues with the election in Georgia, specifically mentioning missing ballot images and hash validation files. They criticize the hand count process and mention duplicated Dropbox custody forms. They also highlight that poll tapes were not signed by witnesses. The speaker expresses frustration with the report from the cyber and security infrastructure agency and the sealing of the Halderman report. They mention the need for rigorous post-election audits and criticize the lack of risk limiting audits in the 2022 elections.

The transcript presents a broad, multi-voiced warning about the vulnerability of U.S. voting systems and the ease with which they can be hacked, hacked-stopping demonstrations, and the security gaps that remain even as elections continue. Key points and claims: - Virginia stopped using touch screen voting because it is “so vulnerable,” and multiple speakers argue that all voting machines must be examined to prevent hacking and attacks. Speaker 0, Speaker 1, and others emphasize systemic vulnerability across states. - Researchers have repeatedly demonstrated that ballot recording machines and other voting systems are susceptible to tampering, with examples that even hackers with limited knowledge can breach machines in minutes (Speaker 2, Speaker 3). - In 2018, electronic voting machines in Georgia and Texas allegedly deleted votes for certain candidates or switched votes from one candidate to another (Speaker 4). - The largest voting machine vendors are accused of cybersecurity violations, including directing that remote access software be installed, which would make machines attractive to fraudsters and hackers (Speaker 5). - Across the country, voting machines are described as easily hackable, with contention that three companies control many systems and that individual machines pose significant risk (Speaker 2, Speaker 6). - Many states use antiquated machines vulnerable to hacking, with demonstrations showing how easily workers could hack electronic voting machines (Speakers 7, 2). - A substantial portion of American voters use machines researchers say have serious security flaws, including backdoors (Speaker 5). Some states reportedly have no paper trail or only partial paper records (Speaker 5, various). - Aging systems are noted as failing due to use of unsupported software such as Windows XP/2000, increasing vulnerability to cyber attacks (Speaker 9). An observed concern is that 40 states use machines at least a decade old (Speaker 9). - Specific past intrusions are cited: Illinois and Arizona in 2016 had election websites hacked, with malware installed and sensitive voter information downloaded (Speaker 4). - There is debate about whether votes were changed in the 2016 election; one speaker notes that experts say you cannot claim—without forensic analysis—that votes were not changed (Speaker 17, 18). - The existence of paper records is contested: some jurisdictions lack verifiable paper trails, undermining the ability to prove results are legitimate (Speaker 5, 9). - Some devices rely on cellular modems to transmit results after elections, creating additional avenues for interception and manipulation; vendors acknowledge modems but vary in how they frame Internet connectivity (Speakers 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21). The debate covers whether cellular transmissions truly isolate from the Internet or provide a backdoor, with demonstrations showing that modems can be connected to Internet networks and could be exploited. - The “programming” phase of elections—where memory cards are prepared with candidates and contests—can be a vector for spread of rogue software if an attacker compromises the election management system (Speaker 11, Speaker 10). - A scenario is outlined in which an attacker identifies weak swing states, probes them, hacks the election management system or outside vendors, spreads malicious code to machines, and alters a portion of votes; the assumption is that many jurisdictions will not rigorously use paper records to verify computer results (Speaker 10). - A Virginia governor’s anecdote is shared: after a hack demonstrated off-site by experts, all machines were decertified and replaced with paper ballots (Speaker 16). Overall impression: the discussion paints a picture of pervasive vulnerability, aging and diverse systems, reliance on modems and networked components, potential for targeted manipulation in close elections, and the need for upgrades and robust forensic capabilities, while noting contested claims about the extent of past interference.

Protecting the voting process in Georgia is crucial this election season. Independent experts are examining the state's new $107 million voting system, which includes a complex array of technology such as laptops, iPads, touch screens, and scanners. While Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger believes this system is more accurate than pen and paper, critics argue that paper records marked by voters are the ideal solution. The new machines faced issues during the June primary, including long download times, incorrect race displays, and power failures. Concerns have also been raised about the QR codes used for scanning votes and a last-minute software patch. Despite these concerns, the election will proceed with the ballot marking device system, and post-election audits will be conducted.

The speaker discusses tally sheets from the Georgia audit, noting that many of them show fraudulent numbers, such as 100 to nothing or 150 to nothing. They suspect that the people conducting the audit intentionally filled out these sheets with incorrect numbers. The speaker also mentions that the ballot images obtained from Dominion machines show duplicate markings on different ballots, with over 4,000 instances of duplication found so far. They highlight a spreadsheet with 40,000 line items comparing original election numbers to the recount, revealing an error rate of 59.5%.

The speakers discuss the need to improve the electoral system and address issues with corrupt administrators and faulty voting machines. They criticize the lack of investigation into the source code and cast vote records of the machines. They also mention a case in Georgia that exposes problems with the machines. They believe that the Department of Homeland Security is involved in election subversion and that the machines can be easily manipulated. They mention a forthcoming film that aims to shed light on the election issues. The speakers assert that they have evidence to support their claims and challenge opponents to present their arguments. They maintain that the election was stolen.

In May, an alarm went off at a warehouse in Fulton County, Georgia, where evidence related to the 2020 election was stored. Deputies guarding the warehouse had left their posts, and when they returned, they found the 100-pound steel door open. Fulton County officials have refused to let the public see the ballots stored in the warehouse, but a lawsuit revealed that at least 36 boxes of mail-in ballots were double-counted, totaling over 4,000 votes. The Atlanta Journal Constitution also found hundreds of improperly duplicated ballots. Surveillance footage showed ballots being scanned multiple times, and audit tally sheets were falsified. Additionally, an expert found that nearly 35,000 voters in Georgia illegally voted in their old county. The lack of transparency and potential voter fraud undermines trust in the election process.

The video discusses concerns about the potential manipulation of votes in election software. It questions whether proper validation processes were followed, such as having observers from both parties present during the transmission of SD cards and the transportation of ballots. The speaker also mentions the use of election night reporting data and emphasizes that there is no human entry of totals, which eliminates the possibility of human error.

Georgia's recount is being questioned due to the use of allegedly flawed auditing software. The program requires county elections directors to input their information into the secretary of state's system, allowing the state to dictate the results instead of the counties reporting to the state. Election monitor Garland Favorito expressed concern over this compromised audit process. He observed a significant increase in Joe Biden's vote count while Donald Trump's count appeared to decrease. Favorito found this discrepancy to be unrealistic and fundamentally flawed. The secretary of state's office has not yet responded to these concerns.

- The discussion centers on Fulton County’s ballot-seizure case and the implication that the affidavit relied on was built from recycled conspiracy theories by a known conspiracy figure. It is asserted that the judge was not told these issues had already been relitigated, and that the administration appears intent on applying the same approach elsewhere. - Question raised: can these efforts be stopped, given the underlying pattern and what the other side is pursuing? And what is their plan for 2026 if they lack the 2020 conspiracies to lean on? - Jen notes her role as counsel in the Fulton County matter and declines to comment further on the specifics. - Jessica forecasts that Trump-aligned actors will pull out 2020 ballots and photos, arguing that the numbers don’t add up and that the machines were faulty and the people fudged because, allegedly, in Fulton County they did. She emphasizes that there is no evidence that the irregularities would have changed the outcome in Georgia, but acknowledges there were thousands of irregularities, with records destroyed and chain-of-custody issues, and that the recount and audit were of poor quality. She warns that in 2026 the same approach could be used again with untrustworthy machines and flawed audits, and warns that even if actual facts are shown, they would highlight known errors. - Marilyn adds the point that a Barack Obama-appointee judge confirmed the unreliability of the machines and notes a demonstrator at DEFCON Voting Village showed how easily a Dominion machine can be hacked. She cites a view that Biden still won Georgia, despite the “fudged audits,” and argues that the intent behind the questionable procedures was to obscure errors. - Jessica identifies Raffensperger as the official who chose the machines and funded the expansive spending on them, suggesting he did not want critical issues to be exposed. She asserts that the process was designed to avoid scrutiny and that the results were obtained by running ballots through the machine multiple times to adjust numbers, including using test ballots to influence results. - The conversation concludes with a focus on the importance of recounts and audits, and the need for a transparent process in 2026. Jessica argues that Georgia’s issues stemmed from an audit with bogus processes and a recount conducted through machines rather than a hand count at counting tables with observers from both campaigns and the clerk. She asserts that the transparency of the counting process could have mitigated much of the controversy and that the lesson for 2026 is to implement a transparent system.

All votes in The United States Of America are counted in The United States Of America. There is no evidence that any machine has been manipulated by a foreign power. Recounts are consistent with the initial count, confirming that the systems used in the twenty twenty election performed as expected. The American people should have 100% confidence in their vote. A lawyer representing the president claimed that Dominion voting machines ran an algorithm to take votes from President Trump and flip them to President Biden. Votes in Georgia were cast on paper, counted by a machine, and recounted by hand, with consistent outcomes. If there was an algorithm flipping votes, it didn't work. The more likely explanation is that there was no algorithm and that security controls protected the systems from misbehavior.

There was significant voter fraud in Fulton County, Georgia, during the November election, with over 4,000 mail-in ballots double counted. Voter GA's findings indicate that more than 3,300 votes were counted for Biden and 865 for Trump due to these discrepancies. The Atlanta Journal Constitution corroborated that hundreds of ballots were improperly duplicated. Surveillance footage shows ballots being scanned multiple times, raising questions about how many times votes were counted. An audit revealed falsified tally sheets, with discrepancies in reported vote totals. Additionally, over 200 mail-in ballot images were found that were not included in the hand count. An expert noted that nearly 35,000 voters had moved out of their counties before the election but still voted illegally. These issues highlight serious concerns about election integrity and the need for transparency in the electoral process.

There was meaningful voter fraud in Fulton County, Georgia during the 2020 election. At least 36 batches of mail-in ballots were double counted, totaling over 4,000 votes. The Atlanta Journal Constitution independently reviewed digital ballot images and found hundreds of improperly duplicated ballots. Surveillance footage obtained by Voter GA showed ballots being scanned multiple times. Fulton County failed to provide over 100,000 audit tally sheets, and when they were finally turned over, falsified sheets were found. A whistleblower noticed that the mail-in ballots had no creases and were filled out by a printer. An elections expert found that nearly 35,000 voters illegally voted in their old county. It is important to find out the truth and ensure the integrity of our elections.

The speaker discusses various issues related to the election. They mention instances of duplicate scanning of ballots and non-unique cast vote records in Allegheny. They also bring up a case in Antrim County, Michigan, where software settings changed the winner in a small area. Another instance is mentioned in Fulton County, Pennsylvania, where an IP address connected to the voting system from a foreign location. The speaker expresses concern about the security and transparency of the election due to the possibility of data being transmitted to foreign IP addresses. They mention a Python script and a foreign IP address found on the same adjudication workstation. Additionally, they highlight a signature mismatch error code in Georgia's system log files.

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.

This transcript discusses a risk limiting audit report conducted by county election officials in Georgia for the 2020 presidential contest. The original machine count showed a 0.3% margin between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, leading to a manual count of over 5 million ballots. The decision to conduct this audit has been criticized by Philip Stark, a statistics professor at the University of California Berkeley, who referred to it as a "Frankencount." The process has been referred to as a risk limiting audit, a hand recount, and an audit, but it remains unclear what it actually is.