reSee.it - 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 discusses the issue of bleed through on ballots and its potential impact on voting. They mention that if the bubbles on the ballot bleed through, it can cause an overvote or result in voting for a different candidate than intended. They refer to a newsletter from Maricopa County stating that they use VoteSecure paper, which is thick and has a special coating to prevent bleed through. However, the speaker points out that they have observed bleed through on actual ballots, which raises concerns. They mention the need for further analysis to determine the extent of the impact on votes. The second speaker seeks clarification and confirms that Maricopa County's newsletter stated they only use secure paper that does not allow bleed through. The first speaker affirms this and adds that paper experts have confirmed the thickness of the paper should prevent bleed through, but they have observed thin paper stock being used on Election Day.

County technical employees reported independently that the vote counts recorded by machines and stored on USB drives changed overnight after polls closed. Votes seemed to appear and disappear during this time. When we sought to verify the integrity of these voting machines, we were only permitted a superficial visual inspection of the USB drives and denied a forensic examination.

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 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.

Speaker 0 mentions the possibility of printing out something. Speaker 1 asks if there is an explanation for the uncounted votes. Speaker 2 clarifies that there is no concrete explanation for why those votes were not counted by the machine in the first place. Speaker 1 confirms that they don't know why the votes didn't get scanned. Speaker 2 asks if the Dominion Tech guys have figured out the reason, but Speaker 0 says they are not allowed to comment. Speaker 1 believes it wasn't a memory card issue. Speaker 2 asks if memory cards can be ruled out, and Speaker 1 agrees. Speaker 0 suggests it may be human error, but they don't have evidence to confirm it. Speaker 2 questions if it could be a software issue, but Speaker 0 refuses to speculate. Speaker 2 acknowledges the lack of a definite answer.

The speaker was contacted to assist with examining ballots during the audit in Maricopa County. However, they were only able to examine photographs of the ballots, not the actual ballots themselves. They noticed that many of the ballots had a counterfeit protection system (CPS) code, but the photographs were not clear enough to determine what the code said. The CPS code is a series of yellow dots that can determine when and where a document was printed. It is visible to a trained eye or with magnification, but not to the naked eye. The code can provide information about the machine and date of printing. However, without access to the actual ballots, the speaker cannot draw any conclusions.

On election night, the results from tabulating machines appeared inaccurate. The board decided to conduct a hand recount to ensure accurate election results. The speaker questions this decision, stating they have advocated for hand recounts for twenty years.

Speaker 0 mentions the possibility of printing out something. Speaker 1 asks if there is an explanation for why certain votes were not counted. Speaker 2 clarifies that there is no concrete explanation for why those votes were not counted by the machine. Speaker 1 confirms that they do not know why the votes were not scanned. Speaker 2 asks if the Dominion Tech guys have figured out the reason, but Speaker 0 says they are not allowed to comment. Speaker 2 asks if it could be a memory card issue, but Speaker 1 and Speaker 0 both say they don't think so. Speaker 0 suggests it could be human error, but they don't have evidence to confirm it. Speaker 2 questions if it could be a software issue, but Speaker 0 avoids speculation. They admit they don't have a definite answer yet. Speaker 2 acknowledges this and thanks them.

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.

The speaker expresses frustration about a blank ballot that was not voted on. They mention being able to stop adjudication and scan and adjudicate all ballots, including the blank one. Misty asks if a ballot can be scanned multiple times, and the speaker confirms they have done so. They mention not receiving any more ballots until about 1. The speaker explains that the system is set to handle ambiguous marks and overvotes, but they want to see if it can handle blank ballots as well. They scan the blank ballot, accept it into the system, and mention that the system does not know who touched the ballots during adjudication.

The speakers observed irregularities in the ballots, suspecting that they were not filled out by hand but rather printed. They noticed that the bubbles were perfectly filled and not aligned correctly. The paper used for the ballots was very thin, with some ballots having more than 50% missing or torn off. This raised concerns as it seemed intentional and could affect the voters' intent. The speakers emphasized that someone else was determining the voters' choices, effectively voting on their behalf.

- The discussion centers on ballot processing in Maricopa County, with several shipments arriving after the initial belief that counting was near completion. Speaker 0 notes that the Wednesday before the Friday they quit voting, and ten days before they quit tabulating, more truckloads of ballots came in, leading to the question: “how can you not know how many ballots are still out there?” - Speaker 1 asks for clarification: “They thought they were done.” The conversation confirms multiple times that those running the counting rooms believed they were almost done, or would be done, on Wednesday morning, then Thursday morning, then Friday morning, and the process extended into the next week. - Trucks bringing ballots arrived on the third, fourth, and fifth days, continuing throughout the last week. The last day mentioned is the tenth, with ballots still arriving. The company involved is Runback, described as doing high-speed scanning and printing of duplications and military ballots. There was no observer presence at Runback, and Speaker 0 indicates she had not been called to work there; she does not know exactly what Runback was doing (printing vs. scanning). - It is stated that all high-speed scanning occurs at Runback, and the ballots go to Runback. There is uncertainty about off-site scanning and whether Dominion equipment was involved. Speaker 0 clarifies: “They were duplications, the ballots that wouldn’t read through the tabulation machines. They were ballots that came in from military and overseas.” The number of additional sources for ballots beyond military/overseas is unknown, and Speaker 0 suggests this is a question for county employees to explain. - About the counting process: Speaker 0 confirms that the ballots went through tabulation machines and that adjudication work took place for those late arrivals. They observed the ballots being processed, but did not know the exact totals for certain days. - Daily volumes are described. Speaker 0 estimates: one day a shift might handle 90,000 ballots, and some days had similar volumes across three shifts; other days had fewer. There were days when as few as 15,000 ballots were processed. The “back door” arrivals are contrasted with the front door, with Speaker 0 noting that all back door ballots were received through back entries, not the front door. The remaining ballots in the latter part of the period continued to come in and be tabulated, with ongoing full-time shifts through the eighth, ninth, and tenth days. - The episode concludes with Speaker 1 seeking further explanation, and Speaker 0 indicating that some of the details were not fully known and that a county employee should clarify where the incoming ballots came from during the latter part of the period.

The speaker questions Monsieur Darmanin about the removal of citizen control over elections and the difficulties in verifying the results. They mention that the annexation of proxy lists to the voting records has been eliminated, making it technically impossible to verify the elections. They highlight instances of dishonesty and errors in previous elections and ask how the government plans to address these issues in the upcoming European elections.

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.

Speaker 0 mentions the possibility of printing out something. Speaker 1 asks about the reason for the uncounted votes. Speaker 2 clarifies that there is no concrete explanation for why those votes were not counted by the machine. Speaker 1 confirms that they don't know why the votes didn't get scanned. Speaker 2 asks if the Dominion Tech guys have figured out the reason, but Speaker 0 says they are not allowed to comment. Speaker 2 points out that it hasn't been confirmed if it was a memory card issue. Speaker 1 agrees and suggests it could be human error. Speaker 0 says the ballots didn't transfer over correctly, but they don't have a definite answer yet. Speaker 2 asks if it could be a software issue, but Speaker 0 refuses to speculate. They conclude that they don't have a pinpointed answer at the moment.

I noticed that the ballot numbers and last names on the absentee and mail-in ballots were in sequence, which is unusual because these ballots should come in different numbers. This raised my suspicion. I asked about the date on the envelopes, but there was only November 0, 2020, with no second number. When I questioned this, the supervisors became angry and accused me of disrupting their work. I didn't want to be kicked out, so I didn't challenge anything further. The ballot numbers were all from the same area, with similar signatures, and there was no date stamp after 0. None of these ballots were showing up in the system and were being manually entered, even though they knew these details wouldn't be in the poll book or system.

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.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if they heard Mr. Jared testify about a 20-inch ballot being used in the November 2022 general election. Speaker 1 confirms that they did. Speaker 0 then asks if a 19-inch ballot image projected on a 20-inch piece of paper, used in the Maricopa election, would be rejected when placed into a vote center tabulator. Speaker 1 responds that it would indeed be rejected.

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.

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.

Speaker 0 states that whatever a machine tabulates is what it tabulates, and their hand-marked ballot remains the same. Speaker 1 claims ballot images were changed, and that's reflected in the totals, referencing report number 3. Speaker 0 says they've read the reports. Speaker 1 asserts that Speaker 0 knows what they're saying is true. Speaker 1 says their life is on the line. Speaker 0 denies believing Speaker 1 and finds it insulting to have that put on the record. Speaker 1 apologizes, stating that wasn't their intent.

I sent my concerns to the Secretary of State before the election, expecting them to forward it to the right people. After the election, I followed up with my post-election concerns, but I haven't received a response from the Secretary of State. I attended a Board of Elections meeting last week and planned to testify about securing the ballots. However, I was muted just 15 seconds into my presentation.