reSee.it - Related Video Feed

In this video, the speaker shows two different batches of votes with identical markings. They point out a little tail and the word "Republican" written on both. They mention that there are a total of 62 images in the batch, but they didn't go through all of them. The speaker doesn't remember the exact numbers, but they mention that the batches were fairly close. They highlight one image with a little bubble and mention that it matches another image with the same batch number. The conclusion is that there are duplicate ballots in the entire batch that were scanned multiple times.

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.

In this video, the speaker shows two different batches of votes, scanner 5,162, batch 234, image 59, and scanner 5,162, batch 235, image 19. They point out similarities between the two batches, such as the same little tail on a vote and the word "Republican" written in the same way. The speaker mentions that there are a total of 62 images in the batch, but they haven't gone through all of them yet. They don't know the exact numbers of the total batches, but they believe that the duplicates occurred. The speaker concludes that the entire batch of ballots has been scanned multiple times.

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.

The speaker explains that a table was placed by a person at 8:22 am. Later, they witnessed four suitcases being taken out from under the table. The speaker questions why these separate ballots were only counted when the place was cleared out with no witnesses. They estimate that around 18,000 ballots could have been processed during the two hours when no one was present to supervise. The speaker mentions that the operation continued until around 12:55 am, and they have video evidence of people counting ballots after they were told to stop. The video concludes with the speaker asking if everyone has seen enough and fast-forwarding to 12:55 am.

In this video, the speaker shows two different batches of votes with identical markings. They point out a little tail that appears on both batches, as well as the word "Republican" written in the same way. The speaker mentions that there are a total of 62 images in the batch, but they didn't have time to go through all of them. They highlight one specific image with a little bubble and mention the batch numbers that match. The conclusion is that there are duplicate ballots in the entire batch that have been scanned multiple times.

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.

In this video, the speaker shows two different batches of votes with identical markings. They point out a tail-like mark on one ballot and explain that it appears on another as well. They also mention the presence of the word "Republican" on both ballots and a dot in the Fannie Willis. The speaker states that there are a total of 62 images in the batch, but they haven't reviewed all of them yet. They don't remember the exact numbers, but they mention that the batch numbers and scanner numbers match for some of the duplicate ballots. The conclusion is that the entire batch has been scanned multiple times.

In this video, the speaker shows two batches of votes with identical markings. They point out a little tail and the word "Republican" written on both. They mention that there are 62 images in total, but they only highlight a few. The speaker doesn't remember the exact numbers, but they mention that the batches were fairly close. They also mention specific image numbers that match in both batches. The conclusion is that there are duplicate ballots and the entire batch has been scanned multiple times.

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 this video, the speaker refers to declarations from signature verification workers in 2022. One worker named Andrew mentions that the numbers on the whiteboard for the ballots to be verified didn't add up. They were processing around 60,000 signatures a day, but only receiving about 1,000 envelopes for review the next day, instead of the expected 12,000 to 15,000. The rejection rates were consistent at 20% to 30%, but the math didn't seem to match the actual numbers.

In this video, the speaker presents an example comparing two signatures. On the left is the signature on a valid envelope, while on the right is the signature on a voter registration card. The speaker points out that the signature on the envelope was accepted without being verified. Then, the speaker asks the audience to determine whether the signatures pass or fail.

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.

In this video, the speaker discusses the issue of Dominion machines and their accuracy in counting ballots. They question why in heavily Democratic areas, the mail-in ballots are always on target and within 1 mic, while in Republican areas, the mail-in ballots are often out of calibration. The speaker suggests that the machines allow human intervention, where a person can interpret the ballot if the machine is unsure. This raises concerns about the accuracy and integrity of the voting process.

In this video, the speaker shows two different batches of votes, both from scanner 5162. They point out that there are similarities between the ballots in each batch, such as a little tail and the word "Republican" written on them. The speaker mentions that there are a total of 62 images in the batch, but they only highlight a few obvious examples. They also mention that the total numbers of the batches were fairly close. The speaker concludes that these similarities indicate duplicate ballots, suggesting that the entire batch was scanned multiple times.

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.

The speaker noticed irregularities with the ballot numbers and names on absentee and mailing ballots. The numbers were almost consecutive, and some envelopes lacked a date. When the speaker questioned this, they were met with resistance. The ballot numbers were all from the same area, with similar signatures and no date stamp. None of these details were entered into the system, and they were being manually entered. The speaker suspected something was amiss but didn't challenge further to avoid being kicked out.

In this video, the speaker shows two different batches of votes with duplicate ballots. They point out specific similarities, such as a tail and the word "Republican" written on both. The speaker mentions that there are a total of 62 images in the batch, but they didn't go through all of them. They highlight the occurrence of duplicate ballots and mention the batch numbers and image numbers that match. The conclusion is that the entire batch was scanned multiple times.

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 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.

In this video, the speaker shows two different batches of votes, scanner 5,162, batch 234, image 59, and scanner 5,162, batch 235, image 19. They point out that both batches have the same little tail, indicating a potential mistake or coincidence. They also highlight another example where the word "Republican" is written the same way on both ballots. The speaker mentions that there are a total of 62 images in the batch, but they didn't go through all of them. They conclude that the entire batch seems to have been scanned multiple times.

In the video, the speaker discusses the issue of 17,852 ballots that lack corresponding ballot images. This is a significant number, and while the speaker can explain the number, they cannot explain how this situation occurred. They mention that they hope to receive more information about it on Tuesday. The ballots were counted in the second machine count, but there is no associated ballot image for each of them.

In the video, the speakers discuss the issue of 17,852 ballots that lack corresponding ballot images. Speaker 0 acknowledges the significance of this number, prompting Speaker 1 to explain it. Speaker 1 clarifies that while they can explain the number, they cannot explain how it occurred. They express hope that more information will be provided on Tuesday regarding this matter.