TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

There are concerns about the security of electronic voting machines, as they can potentially be hacked without detection. While there is no evidence of this happening, it cannot be proven that it hasn't or won't happen in the future. Instances of machine errors have been reported, such as recording extra votes for a candidate or subtracting votes instead of adding them. It is unknown how many instances went unnoticed and what impact they had on elections. Legislation is being proposed to require a paper trail for every electronic machine, similar to ATM receipts, to ensure transparency and allow for verification. An investigation is also being requested to assess the effectiveness of voting machines and improve election systems.

The speaker raises concerns about the security of the tabulation machines and the process of transferring votes. They question whether the votes can be manipulated before being saved on a flash drive and if the flash drive can be swapped. They also mention the issue of trusting the county commissioner to not edit the contents of the flash drive. The speaker highlights the importance of the digital devices that hold cryptographic keys, emphasizing that if these keys are lost, the entire precinct's security is compromised. They give an example of a theft in Philadelphia before the election, where USB drives and a laptop were stolen from a key precinct, potentially impacting the legitimacy of the election results.

According to the speaker, Gavin Newsom signed a document that makes it a crime to ask a voter for identification. The speaker believes this action indicates a desire to cheat on elections. The speaker claims that while identification is required for other activities, it is now virtually a crime to ask for it when voting, which the speaker considers the most important act. The speaker asserts the only reason for this is to enable election cheating and insists this should not be allowed to happen.

The speaker states they are investigating dangerous and negative consequences with the "best of the best." They claim electronic voting systems have been vulnerable to hackers for a long time and open to exploitation, allowing manipulation of vote results. This vulnerability purportedly reinforces the need for paper ballots nationwide, so voters can have faith in election integrity.

The speaker questions why the post office shut down ballot imaging and stopped keeping the images for the required 6 years. They highlight that the post office only kept the images for 30 days and then resumed keeping them for 6 years once Biden became president in 2021.

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.

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.

Speaker 1 questions the accuracy of Elections Canada, suggesting the Tarrabon incident, where an error occurred, is not an isolated event. Speaker 1 expresses doubt that this was the only error of its kind and wants to know the probability of it being a unique occurrence, implying there are likely more errors that have been overlooked or "obsoleted."

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.

The speaker raises concerns about a bill and the governor's office being connected to a vendor. They question why certain information wasn't released earlier and express curiosity about the lack of a fiscal note. They mention that cybersecurity experts and voters are against the bill for various reasons. Speaker 1 highlights instances of hacking and anomalies in previous elections, emphasizing the lack of paper trail and source code access. They also mention the encryption of timestamps, which could compromise the secrecy of votes. The speaker concludes by mentioning a recent flaw discovered in the machines.

Jordan Conrad from Gateway Plumbing questions Miss Hobbs about the election in Arizona, specifically mentioning secret machine testing in Maricopa County and discrepancies in mailing ballot signatures. He asks if she authorized the testing and if she is aware of the signature issues. Jordan criticizes Miss Hobbs for overseeing elections in Maricopa County and Arizona.

The speaker questions Monsieur Darmanin about the removal of citizen control over elections. They mention that the annexation of proxy lists to the voting records has been eliminated, making it technically impossible to verify a vote. They express the difficulty in making a recourse within the given ten-day timeframe due to the decentralization of the process. The speaker shares their personal experience of finding 64 non-existent proxy votes out of 134 in their constituency, which raises concerns about dishonest practices. They ask Monsieur Darmanin how he plans to address these issues in the upcoming European elections to protect democracy.

The speaker highlights the Rasmussen poll, which claims that 20% of mail-in ballots in the 2020 presidential election were rigged or defective. They argue that this makes the election a scam and asserts that fair elections are impossible with mail-in ballots, as cheating will always occur. They mention that France and other countries have eliminated mail-in voting and urge the Republican Party to take action and unite against Democratic cheating. The speaker concludes by expressing their disgust with the situation.

Speaker 0 asked Speaker 1 to explain what they wanted to get from the board if they had been allowed to continue. Speaker 1 mentioned that since 2019, voters have no way of knowing if their vote was counted properly because they can't read the QR code. Even if the words on the ballot match their vote, the QR code remains unreadable. Speaker 1 believes the board panicked when they were about to discuss this issue.

There are concerns about noncitizens potentially voting in elections due to lack of citizenship verification. Democrats oppose a bill requiring proof of citizenship to vote. Loopholes exist, allowing noncitizens to vote without consequences. Democrats are accused of exploiting this for political gain. The issue is seen as election interference and a threat to American voters. The conversation highlights the impact of illegal voting on citizens' rights.

The speaker states that the best investigators are pursuing election integrity. They claim there is evidence that electronic voting systems have been vulnerable to hackers for a long time and can be exploited to manipulate vote results. This vulnerability allegedly drives the mandate to implement paper ballots across the country, so voters can have faith in election integrity.

I have some questions about the election in Arizona, specifically Maricopa County. I'm asking about the secret testing done on the machines. As Secretary of State, you're supposed to oversee election procedures and conduct additional testing. Did you authorize this? And what about the signatures on the mail-in ballot updates? Are you aware that they don't match the voter signatures? As Secretary of State, you oversaw elections in Maricopa County, so are those elections the best?

The speaker discusses the potential vulnerabilities of electronic voting machines. They mention instances where machines recorded extra votes for a candidate or subtracted votes instead of adding them. These issues were caught and corrected, but it raises concerns about undetected instances and their impact on elections. The speaker emphasizes the need for a paper trail to ensure transparency and accountability. They mention legislation proposed by Rush Holt and Hillary Clinton that calls for electronic machines to provide a printed receipt for voters to verify their choices. They also highlight a case where 4,500 votes were lost due to a machine malfunction. The speaker requests an investigation by the Government Accountability Office to assess the effectiveness of voting machines.

I came to meet Emmanuel Macron and talk about his lies. He lied about Covid, the war, and retirement. He has put the country in chaos. I got vaccinated because he said he was vaccinated, but now people, including lawmakers, are saying he isn't. I want to ask him if it's true. Mr. Macron, can you answer? He will probably say he will go through the process without empathy. I don't think he cares about the French people. There is a deputy in the National Assembly who says he isn't vaccinated, so we want to know the truth. Are you vaccinated or not? If you don't want to answer, the French people will judge.

The speaker discusses foreign interference in elections and questions why the president is not pursuing this avenue. They mention evidence of votes being sent overseas and foreign actors meddling in elections. The speaker then explains how voter rolls are kept in foreign nations, such as Pakistan, and how fake ballots are attributed to registered voters who have not yet voted. They reveal that 171,000 blank fake ballots were dropped into the system and attributed to different people, ultimately benefiting the Democratic candidates. The speaker concludes by stating that there are other aspects of foreign involvement in elections.

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.

I was surprised to learn that there was no signature verification done for the ballots. I questioned how ballots without signatures were handled, and the response was they were just sent back out. This made me uncomfortable certifying the results.

The speaker discusses a situation where an election result hinged on a single vote, which they find statistically improbable. They mention a previously uncounted vote that was discovered, potentially creating a tie or necessitating a recount. The speaker raises concerns about 800 canceled votes and questions the criteria and oversight involved in rejecting votes. They call for transparency and scrutiny of every rejected vote, suggesting potential errors or biases in the process. The speaker questions Elections Canada and whether they will review every single thing. They express the opinion that winning by one vote in this scenario suggests possible manipulation, implying someone may have arbitrarily decided the outcome.

Nederlandse samenvatting: Al dingen mee doen die leiden tot verstoringen en dan misschien dus niet tot geslaagde verkiezingsfraude, dat is het allerergste, maar wel tot bijvoorbeeld onrust in het proces en daarmee mogelijk verlies van het vertrouwen in het proces. De Kiesraad zegt dat het veilig is, maar wat zeg jij dan? "Ja, dat is dezelfde Kiesraad die de stamcomputers in 2006 ook goed vond." De spreker vraagt: "Wat is jouw antwoord tegenover dan ik vertrouw je niet, maar hoe vind jij het niet veilig?" Hij noemt ontbrekende details: "Ik zie helemaal niks over bijvoorbeeld gedetailleerde eisen en normen over hoe de systemen ingericht moeten worden, waar die software op draait." Toezicht ontbreekt; "Je moet dat toch heel gedetailleerd en fanatiek inregelen." "En wie zijn dat dan?" "Als een gemeente IT grotendeels heeft uitbesteed, worden de computers die de stemmen tellen ingericht door medewerkers van een privaat bedrijf?" De zorg: zonder toezicht en zonder oplossingen voor eenvoudige softwarebugs "kunnen ... leiden tot heel veel risico's" en ons vertrouwen in dit proces. English translation: Doing things that lead to disruptions and then maybe not to successful election fraud, that is the worst, but also for example unrest in the process and thereby possible loss of trust in the process, and that is nearly as bad as fraud. The Electoral Board says it is safe, but what do you say? "Yes, that is the same Electoral Board that the stamcomputers in 2006 also found to be good." The speaker asks: "What is your answer to I don’t trust you, but how do you find it not safe?" He cites missing details: "I see nothing about, for example, detailed requirements and standards for how the systems should be configured, where the software runs." Oversight is missing; "you have to arrange this in very detailed and rigorous manner." "And who are those people then?" "If a municipality largely outsources IT, are the vote-counting computers then set up by employees of a private company?" The concern: without oversight and without solutions for simple software bugs, "they can lead to a lot of risks" and our trust in this process.

The speaker states that the "best of the best" are investigating election integrity. They claim there is evidence that electronic voting systems have been vulnerable to hackers and exploitation, allowing for the manipulation of vote results. This allegedly supports the mandate to implement paper ballots nationwide, with the goal of restoring voters' faith in election integrity.