TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

During the discussion, Speaker 1 mentions an interesting observation regarding the voter rolls. They found that 11,326 individuals who were not listed on the November 7th version of the voter rolls appeared on the December 4th version, despite showing as having voted in the recent election. Speaker 0 seeks an explanation for this discrepancy, emphasizing that they are not implying fraud but simply seeking answers. Speaker 1 admits they cannot think of a logical explanation and suggests reaching out to the county for clarification. The conversation ends there.

The speaker asks if the other person has received any emails from colleagues, but the other person wants to know the question. The speaker then mentions that the State Department's internal email system has added pronouns to the "from" line without people's choice. They question why this decision was made and who made it. The other person says they haven't seen this phenomenon and offers to look into it. The speaker insists that it should be a choice and not imposed by the State Department, especially if the pronouns are incorrect. The other person agrees to investigate and thanks everyone.

I just voted in the White Settlement election and noticed an issue. I selected one candidate on the video screen, but the paper ballot showed a different name. Everyone should check their paper ballots carefully. I’m Lucas Clark, and I also voted at White Settlement. I waited in line for about 45 minutes. I heard from two people who experienced ballot changes, so it’s crucial to double-check your printed ballots. Thank you for your attention, and remember to verify your votes.

The transcript discusses concerns about election irregularities and voting machines. One speaker claims a voting machine subtracted votes, displaying a negative number. Another speaker states that such subtraction cannot occur accidentally and that someone consciously tried to steal votes. A third speaker says that when they press the button next to their name, another person's name appears on the display, questioning the accuracy of the vote count. Another speaker asserts that the machines are working correctly, recording votes accurately, and that the results will be accurate and reliable. One speaker expresses concern about private corporations controlling the voting system and calls for a formal debate about election irregularities, warning that the democracy and republic are at risk.

I voted for the first time in Trump's election and have never participated in a midterm or primary election. It's shocking to realize that someone voted in my name for a midterm primary, and I have not voted in any other presidential elections either. I feel like a bad patriot for only voting once, and that was for President Trump. It's frustrating to see discrepancies in my voting record, especially since I thought I had only voted in one presidential election.

There were suspicious donations made in the name of the speaker, but they do not recognize them. The donations were made using their name and address for small amounts, but the speaker usually only donates around $75. They suspect someone else may be using their information for larger donations. The speaker wants a refund for the unauthorized donations and would have noticed if they were making such large contributions.

The speaker encountered a problem with the poll pad at their polling location, as it was programmed for a different location. They contacted Dominion, the company responsible for the voting system, who remotely reprogrammed the device. The speaker compared this to seeking technical support for their phone or computer. They had to grant permission for Dominion to access and fix the poll pad, which was successfully reprogrammed to the correct location.

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 expresses disbelief that an election could be won by a single vote. They highlight the absurdity of the situation, noting the initial vote count was 44-35 in favor of the liberal party. The speaker finds it bizarre that the election result hinges on one vote. They then mention a woman named Emmanuel, who claims Elections Canada didn't count her vote due to an incorrect address. The speaker questions how, out of all the people in Turbine, Emmanuel, who allegedly voted for the block, was the only one whose vote couldn't be found.

A group of about 12 foreigners arrived to vote. Younger individuals assisted them in filling out their voter information. They managed to bypass a two-hour line and approached a polling official. However, there was an issue with one woman's name not being in the system. The group suggested they could change it on the spot, raising questions about how that could be done.

I woke up this morning determined to vote, feeling it was important to participate in the election. At the Episcopal Church in Cape Coral, Florida, I waited in line for about 30 minutes. When I presented my ID, the representative informed me that I had already voted by mail, which I denied. I expressed my concerns about mail-in voting being easily manipulated. The representative called someone for assistance, and after about 15 minutes, they were able to delete the erroneous vote. I was finally allowed to vote, but I felt anxious and confused, especially since I had just registered a week and a half ago. It’s unsettling to think that my vote could have been intercepted, and I’ll never know who I supposedly voted for by mail.

Jordan Conrad from Gateway Plumbing questions Miss Hobbs about the secret testing on election machines in Maricopa County, Arizona. He asks about discrepancies in signatures on mail-in ballots. Miss Hobbs, as secretary of state, oversaw elections in the area. Jordan expresses frustration and asks for a break while at the gym.

A group of about 12 foreigners arrived to vote. Younger individuals assisted them in filling out their voter registration forms. They managed to bypass a two-hour line and approached a polling station. However, one woman was told her name wasn't in the system. The group suggested they could go back and change it, raising questions about how names could be altered.

I received a text saying I had voted, but I hadn’t. Later, I got another text apologizing for the mistake. This prompted me to go to the polls early. When I arrived and tried to register, they told me I was already marked as having voted. I showed them the texts as proof, but they insisted there was nothing they could do. I have screenshots confirming I did not vote, yet the records say otherwise. I was at work when the supposed vote occurred. I need to know who to contact about this issue, as it feels illegal. TikTok, please don’t remove my video; I have proof of my situation.

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.

My wife and I went to vote in Morgan County, where we recently moved. We updated our voter registration, but when we arrived at the precinct, our names weren't in the system. Poll watchers and clerks mentioned they were experiencing more voting issues than ever, affecting both new and long-time residents. We were allowed to vote provisionally, but our names won't be counted in the tally for about a week. This raises concerns about the voting process, especially in a small, predominantly red county in Alabama. What does this mean for voting issues across the country? Let's discuss.

Okay, so the first election I ever voted in was when Trump was running. I've actually never voted in any midterm or primary elections at all. So it looks like someone voted using my name in a midterm primary. Then there are three presidential elections that it says I didn't vote in. But the first time I ever voted was for President Trump. I've never voted in a midterm or another presidential election since then. All of this information is a lie. So there's two presidential votes here that I did not make. I am very upset by this.

I just finished voting, but there was an issue. When I presented my ID, the clerk informed me that their records showed I had requested, received, and returned a mail-in ballot, which I hadn't done. As a result, I had to cast a provisional vote and sign an affidavit stating I never received or returned an absentee ballot. Now, I need to call a number after election day to check if my vote was counted. It makes me wonder how many others faced similar issues, raising questions about the fairness and reliability of the voting system.

Speaker 0 explains that under that scenario, someone could get their driver's license again because they register to vote. If the Social Security number doesn’t match, they’re flagged, but as long as they have an ID (the driver’s license) and sign that they’re eligible to vote, they can vote, and they’re no longer flagged. They would be on the system, correct, Mister Lanell. Speaker 1 responds: Madam chair, if I could add, and maybe stepping back from those that are flagged as CID on the roster, for anyone presenting documentation to register to vote, that is an affirmation of their identity. The driver’s license has not been used as proof of citizenship for the purposes of registering to vote—affirming that they are who they say they are. So in any of these cases where someone were to cast a ballot if they were ineligible to vote, there are also reports that are generated post election for voters that are challenged. Counties will run to show status of voters that had been updated due to the fact that they’ve now cast a ballot, and that can be reviewed and referred to the county attorney. Speaker 0 concludes: Okay. So the answer is yes to my question.

A group of about 12 foreigners arrived to vote. They were assisted by younger individuals to fill out their voter registration forms. Despite facing a two-hour wait, they managed to bypass the line. When one woman approached the voting station, officials couldn't find her name in the system. The group suggested they could change her name to resolve the issue, raising questions about how that could be done.

I went to vote and found out someone with my exact name and birthday in the same state has already voted. When they scanned my license, it showed I had voted, but I haven't. My name is unique, and the only difference was the address. This seems strange, especially since I'm not registered to vote, which might explain the issue. Overall, it feels sketchy.

On October 21st, the speaker witnessed a series of unusual events that seemed too coincidental. They saw thousands of ballots with return addresses being loaded onto their trailer in New York, destined for Pennsylvania. Initially, they thought it was exciting to be involved in the presidential race. However, as things got stranger, they started questioning why they were transporting complete ballots from one state to another. Feeling unsure, they decided to speak up and share their experience today.

A group of about 12 foreigners arrived to vote. They were assisted by younger individuals to fill out their voter registration. Despite a two-hour wait, they managed to bypass the line. One woman faced issues with her name not being in the system, but was told they could change it. There was confusion about how to change her name on the spot.

A lady called the speaker's Senate office to report that someone had come to her door claiming to update her voter registration, but her card arrived with a Republican affiliation instead of her lifelong Democrat status. The media initially dismissed it as a mistake due to her age. However, after the story was covered, more people started calling the speaker's office with similar experiences. The speaker forwarded these calls to a reporter named Glenna Milberg, who conducted her own investigation. The speaker asked callers to provide information about their neighbors and requested pictures of the individuals who came to their doors. Many people were afraid to speak up due to potential repercussions.

The first speaker describes a scenario in which a person can obtain a driver’s license again because licenses are issued broadly to those who register to vote. If the individual’s Social Security number does not match, they are flagged, but as long as they present an ID (the driver’s license) and sign that they are eligible to vote, they can vote and are no longer flagged, remaining in the system. Mister Lanell then responds by clarifying the process. He says that for anyone presenting documentation to register to vote, that documentation serves as affirmation of their identity. He notes that the driver’s license has not been used as proof of citizenship for the purposes of registering to vote; rather, it affirms that the person is who they say they are. He adds that in any case where someone were to cast a ballot, if they were ineligible to vote, there are reports generated post-election for voters who are challenged. Counties run these reports to show the status of voters that had been updated due to having cast a ballot, and these reports can be reviewed and referred to the county attorney. The first speaker concludes by restating the original question and provides a direct answer: the answer is yes to their question.