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.

The Office of the Legislative Auditor released a report describing as damning findings that state employees fabricating records were used to cover up mismanagement of taxpayer money, marking another black eye for the State Department of Human Services. Judy Randall—a longtime OLA veteran with twenty-seven years at the office—stressed that her statement carries weight, noting that her most recent audit proved state workers were fabricating documents to cover up mismanagement of taxpayer money. The auditors found that documents should exist but did not, and when requested, they suddenly did exist; in at least one case, the documents were created wholesale and backdated by two years to give the impression that they had always been there and done on time. The OLA audited the Behavioral Health Administration (BHA), which issues nearly $200,000,000 of taxpayer money each year in grants to addiction and mental health service providers. The audit found that BHA was not ensuring that providers were delivering the work. Specifically, BHA did not conduct site visits; the OLA conducted site visits themselves and identified serious concerns that services were not being provided. One grant examined was $1,600,000 issued to the Wellness Collaborative through Zion Baptist Church in North Minneapolis. According to the OLA report, BHA lacked documentation showing that the services were rendered. Moreover, the grant manager profited by leaving BHA and, months later, providing consulting services to the Wellness Collaborative for the grant she had managed; Randall characterized this as not illegal, but raising a host of ethical questions. Representatives at Zion strongly disputed what BHA and DHS told the auditors. They asserted that DHS sought them out for the grant, that they provided services DHS workers witnessed, and that they supplied DHS documentation. They said they believe they are being scapegoated, and the former grant manager told Care 11 that any wrongdoing falls squarely on DHS. The monitoring visit described by the auditors was intended to verify that services were actually being provided, and the auditors emphasized that these are not rocket science tasks. Perhaps most frustrating, this was the second audit of the Behavioral Health Administration, and many of the problems found were repeat issues. The question underscored by the report is what it feels like to see these problems, make the recommendations, and observe nothing done to fix them, a sentiment described as exhausting. Governor Tim Walz’s office said they are grateful for the auditor’s work and for identifying serious issues. Democratic Senator Melissa Wicklund, who chairs the Health and Human Services Committee, stated that it is clear DHS has not taken actions to fix these problems as they had claimed.

The speaker states two key points: first, "I personally approve the decision to seek a search warrant in this matter." Second, "the department does not take such a decision lightly."

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss government disinformation offices and transparency concerns. - CISA’s office of mis, dis, and malinformation (MDM) operated as a DHS unit focused on domestic threat actors, with archive details at cisa.gov/mdm. The office existed for two years, from 2021 to 2023, before being shut down and renamed after the foundation published a series of reports. - The disinformation governance board was formed around April 2022. The CISOs countering foreign influence task force, originally aimed at stopping Russian influence and repurposed to “stop Trump in the twenty twenty election,” changed its name to the office of mis, dis, and malinformation and shifted focus from foreign influence to 80% domestic, 20% foreign, one month before the twenty twenty election. - Speaker 1 argues that the information environment problems are largely domestic, suggesting an 80/20 focus on foreign vs domestic issues should be flipped. - A June 2022 Holly Senate committee link is highlighted, leading to a 31-page PDF that, as of now, represents the sum total of internal documents related to the office of mis, dis, and malinformation. The speaker questions why there is more transparency about the DHS MIS office from a whistleblower three years ago than in ten months of current executive power. - The speaker calls for comprehensive publication of internal files: every email, text, and correspondence from DHS MIS personnel, to be placed in a WikiLeaks/JFK-style publicly accessible database for forensic reconstruction of DHS actions during those years, to name and shame responsible individuals and prevent repetition. - The video also references George Soros state department cables published by WikiLeaks (from 2010), noting extensive transparency about the Open Society Foundations’ relationship with the state department fifteen years ago, compared to today. The claim is that Open Society Foundations’ activities through the state department, USAID, and the CIA were weaponized to influence domestic politics while remaining secret, with zero disclosures to this day. - Speaker questions why cooperative agreements from USAID with Open Society Foundation, Omidyar Network, or Gates Foundation have never been made public, nor quarterly or annual milestone reports, network details, or the actual scope of funded activities. USAID grant descriptions on usaspending.gov are often opaque or misleading compared to the true activities funded. - The speaker urges transparency across DHS, USAID, the State Department, CIA, ODNI, and related entities, asking for open files and for accountability. They stress the need to open these records now to inform the public and prevent recurrence, especially as mid-term political considerations loom.

A speaker stated that it is negligent for the council to allow disinformation to be spread without correction. The speaker claimed that one of the speakers at the meeting spread misinformation and disinformation. They wanted it on the record that statements made by speakers are not necessarily factual.

The speaker discusses the issue of inspecting ballots for signatures. They mention that the Voter Privacy Act prohibits inspectors from looking through a ballot to verify a signature. They also point out that many ballots have two different patterns of the letter "s" written for the signature, even though some of them don't even have an "s" in the voter's name. They state that out of the 104,820 ballots reviewed, 20,232 had mismatched signatures, which accounts for 20% of the total.

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 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 states that the data does not align with normal legal voting processes and lacks consistency. They mention that the certified data, which is also reported by the New York Times and networks, shows negative errors and fraudulent votes. They suggest that either the secretary of state's office is certifying flawed results or someone is providing them with incorrect information. They emphasize that the certified votes for Georgia contain negative swings and decrements, which are errors and do not accurately represent the state's voters. No blame is assigned, but the focus is on highlighting the discrepancies in the certification process.

The speaker questions the certification of the election results, stating that the margin of victory is less than 1%. They mention testimony from the secretary of state's counsel, who sent letters to 8,000 people who voted illegally, advising them not to vote in the US senate race. This number is almost three-fourths of the margin of victory. The speaker also points out that there is a 10% margin that is not accurate. They ask how the senate and house can stand by the certification.

A speaker points out that poll data adds up to 110%. They ask if this is intentional or an error and yield for clarification. Another speaker responds that the data is from a Quinnipiac poll held two weeks prior, noting it contains information about Donald Trump's falling poll numbers. The first speaker reiterates that the data adds up to 110% and calls the poll "fake."

A conversation takes place between two individuals. Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if they are aware that Cobb County has passed multiple audits, including a recent signature audit with a 99.99% accuracy rate. Speaker 1 confirms their awareness and mentions attending a press conference where they received recognition. Speaker 0 then asks if Speaker 1 is aware that the audit was supervised by the secretary of state and the Georgia department GBI. Speaker 1 acknowledges this and recalls witnessing the GBI bringing back boxes of ballots, including an unmarked ballot box. Speaker 0 mentions that both the secretary of state and GBI certified the 99.99% accuracy rate. Speaker 1 expresses skepticism, as there were no observers present during the audit, and they rely on their own observations. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 thanking Speaker 1, who responds with "you're welcome."

The speaker highlights statistical irregularities in the election results, pointing out multiple batches where Biden received all the votes and Trump received none. They assert that this is a statistical impossibility and challenge the media to stop denying the evidence of election fraud. The speaker emphasizes that the incorrect information has been publicly available for months and urges the Secretary of State to acknowledge it.

The speaker highlights two important points. Firstly, there is an acknowledgement from the governor's office and the secretary of state's department that the work being discussed is accurate and correct. Secondly, the data that has been made available to the public is considered to be of poor quality.

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.

Speaker 0 presents a very quick briefing and discusses the credibility of the different things they've seen. They say, "these files were made up by the sea. They were made up by Obama. They were made" as a claim about the files’ origin, with the sentence trailing off in the transcript.

Biden consistently received high numbers of votes while Trump received none, which the speaker deems statistically impossible. They claim that the Secretary of State should be aware of this incorrect information, as it has been publicly available for months. The speaker challenges the media and anyone who denies the existence of election fraud, stating that there is evidence and those who claim otherwise are lying.

I don't think there's been transparency. Routine announcements are being made about findings, and questions are being invited daily. But providing data for the evidence that is being presented isn't happening. The White House has provided information, but these claims seem to be dismissed. Information is being provided; it just isn't believed.

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.

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.

In the discussion, it was noted that the red states provided their data to help determine what the landscape looks like. The results highlighted several issues: 200,000 dead people or people using dead people's Social Security numbers were identified, and half a million individuals were found to be receiving more than twice what they should be getting in benefits. Additionally, there was a case of one person receiving benefits in five states. The speaker emphasized that these findings come from the red states. The speaker then contrasted this with the blue states, explaining that the blue states sued, and that there is active litigation because they do not want California and New York to turn their data over in order to help root out fraud. This contrast underscores the ongoing friction between states over sharing data to combat misuse. A specific point was also made about Minnesota, described as remarkable in the context of the broader discussion and investigations. Given these circumstances, the speaker stated that they are in court and will work really hard to ensure they are protecting the American taxpayer and the people who actually need these programs. The overarching aim conveyed is to root out fraud within the programs by leveraging data from states, despite legal challenges and opposition from some states.

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.

Maine's refusal to release its voter roll information suggests that cleaning up voter rolls is not a priority. This lack of transparency raises concerns about the integrity of elections.

The speaker does not believe new numbers they heard because they claim Donald Trump never says anything truthful. They are unfamiliar with the Bureau of Labor.

The CDC is accused of being corrupt and withholding data, while Florida's surgeon general is praised for transparency. The speaker believes the CDC is dishonest and manipulates information to fit their agenda, especially regarding masks in schools. Florida's governor is commended for his integrity and commitment to the truth, regardless of backlash from pharmaceutical companies or public health authorities. The speaker values honesty and integrity above all else. Translation: The CDC is accused of being corrupt and hiding data, while Florida's surgeon general is praised for being transparent. The speaker believes the CDC is dishonest and manipulates information to suit their agenda, especially regarding masks in schools. Florida's governor is commended for his integrity and commitment to the truth, regardless of backlash from pharmaceutical companies or public health authorities. The speaker values honesty and integrity above all else.