reSee.it - Related Video Feed

I worked with around 80 coworkers in two shifts at the election headquarters. We were all instructed to falsify the ballot package dates by different supervisors. The false dates were entered into the system as the mailing date. This happened daily starting on September 22nd. The supervisors would give us a different date each day, sometimes using the same date consecutively. It was never the correct date, always prior to the actual preparation date.

Expert testifies that the signature verification process in Maricopa County is flawed. The workers are unable to properly review signatures due to technical limitations. The log data reveals that a large number of ballots were approved in less than 3 seconds each, with one worker approving all signatures at this speed. Eleven workers approved 170,000 signatures in less than 3 seconds with a high approval rate. This process does not constitute a thorough signature review. Maricopa County was aware of these issues and could monitor their workers.

The speaker had around 80 coworkers at the original place of work, instructed to falsify ballot package dates by different supervisors on different days. The false dates were used as the ballot mailing date in the system. Multiple supervisors were involved in instructing the backdating process.

The speaker explains that when a ballot jams in the tabulating machines, an error message appears with the options to discard or recount. However, instead of following the correct procedure of discarding the entire batch and rescanning the already tabulated ones, they were repeatedly rescanning the jammed ballots without discarding them. This led to the ballots being counted 8 to 10 times, indicating a lack of understanding and confusion among the individuals involved.

The speaker states that around 80 coworkers were present at the election headquarters. All workers were allegedly instructed to falsify documents when preparing ballot packages. The date on the ballot package would be entered into QVF as the ballot mailing date. Starting September 22nd, a different date was given each day to backdate the application, though sometimes the same date was used on consecutive days. The date was never the correct date, meaning it was never the same day the package was prepared. The speaker claims the date used was always prior to the preparation date. Multiple supervisors allegedly instructed them to backdate the documents every day.

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.

In the Philadelphia Board of Elections, mail-in ballots were processed without any civilian oversight or observation. The ballots were handled in a large room called Hall F, with a fence separating the observers from the workers. The workers were spread out across the room, making it difficult for the observers to see what they were doing. There was no opportunity for the observers to challenge or inspect the mail-in ballots. This lack of oversight is a recurring issue.

A poll worker states that while observing the duplication of a spoiled ballot, she read a Trump Republican ballot to her partner, but the system defaulted to a Biden Democratic ballot when entered. She and others reported witnessing the same manipulation to supervisors. The witness says she was scolded for suggesting the machines were not working correctly and was told not to discuss what was happening. She also claims many people were threatened with removal from the room or job if they spoke out. She believes it is her duty to speak the truth.

The declarants' testimony mentioned by counsel for Lake is unclear as they relied on their memory and did not have the exact details of the signatures they rejected. The signature review process has multiple levels, allowing voters to cure their signatures. The initial reviewer's rejection does not guarantee that the signatures will be deemed inconsistent or not cured. Signature determinations are subjective, varying from person to person. Level 2 and 3 reviewers, with more experience and training, make their own determinations based on additional signatures. Ultimately, the law entrusts this process to the recorder, unless exceptional circumstances arise.

An individual states that around 80 coworkers were instructed to falsify documents at the election headquarters. They claim that when preparing ballot packages, a false date was deliberately placed on them, which would then be entered into the QVF as the ballot mailing date. The individual says that starting September 22nd, they were given different dates to backdate the applications, though sometimes the same date was used for consecutive days. They assert that the date was never the correct date and was always prior to the day the package was prepared, constituting a false statement. They claim that multiple supervisors instructed them to backdate the documents every day.

Melissa Carone, a freelance IT worker contracted by Dominion Voting Systems, witnessed numerous city workers running batches of ballots through tabulators without discarding them first. The tabulating machines would jam frequently, and the correct process would be to remove the problem ballot and rescan the batch. However, instead of discarding the batch, they were rescanning it multiple times, resulting in counting the same ballots and votes 9 to 10 times. Carone estimated that at least 30,000 ballots were counted multiple times.

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.

Starting on September 22nd, different dates were used to backdate applications, sometimes using the same date consecutively. Multiple supervisors instructed around 80 workers to falsify ballot package dates before sending them out. The false date entered into QEF as the ballot mailing date. The law requires correction of this practice. Translation: Different dates were used to backdate applications, with multiple supervisors instructing around 80 workers to falsify ballot package dates before sending them out. The false date entered into QEF as the ballot mailing date. The law requires correction of this practice.

We had around 80 coworkers working in two shifts at the original place. All were instructed to falsify the ballot package date, which was entered as the mailing date in the system. Different false dates were used daily from September 22nd onwards. Multiple supervisors instructed us to backdate the documents.

The speaker witnessed someone using correction tape inside a tabulator machine, which caused the ballots to get jammed. The tape was placed back in the machine after being peeled off. The speaker explained that if a ballot goes through the machine with the tape on it, the machine won't read anything, and the user can override it. The speaker also mentioned that the ballots had no numbers at the top, but they assumed the machine wouldn't read them and the user could manually input the ticket type. The person operating the machine repeatedly put the same set of 27 ballots in instead of separating them, resulting in an inaccurate count. The speaker explained that the machine doesn't have a way to detect if the same ballot has been inserted multiple times, as the sensor and reader are covered.

Starting on September 22nd, different dates were used to backdate applications, sometimes using the same date consecutively. Multiple supervisors instructed around 80 workers to falsify the document by putting a false date on the ballot package. This false date would be entered into the QVF as the ballot mailing date, which is required by law to be corrected. Translation: Different dates were used to backdate applications, with multiple supervisors instructing around 80 workers to falsify the document by putting a false date on the ballot package. This false date would be entered into the QVF as the ballot mailing date, which is required by law to be corrected.

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.

During the election, there were damaged mail-in ballots that couldn't be read by scanners. The board decided to duplicate these ballots using pink highlighters. However, the highlighter couldn't be read by the scanners either, so all the duplicated ballots had to be fixed. The solution was to give workers stacks of blank mail-in ballots to individually fill in the correct ovals with a dark pen. This process went on for hours without observation until the observers confronted the deputy commissioner. Eventually, thousands of mail-in ballots were counted this way. This raises concerns about the integrity of the process.

Starting on September 22nd, different dates were used to backdate applications, sometimes using the same date consecutively. Multiple supervisors instructed around 80 workers to falsify ballot packages by putting false dates on them. The false date entered into QEF was considered the ballot mailing date, which is a violation of the law.

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.

These statements are declarations taken by an attorney and were provided by workers employed by Maricopa County Elections Department. The affidavits confirm that the county could not adequately review the number of ballots claimed within the given time. They also suggest an intentional desire to pass a ballot through, even if it may not be legitimate.

I worked with around 80 coworkers who were instructed to backdate ballot packages at the election headquarters. Different false dates were used each day, totaling about 10,000 false documents created per day for approximately 10 days. Multiple supervisors were involved in giving instructions. The false dates were entered into the system as the mailing date.

The election supervisor wants to vote for Jason Shaw. During adjudication, the supervisor states they want to vote for Biden, overriding the original marks on a ballot. The supervisor decides someone "don't deserve no votes" and chooses not to count votes on that ballot. The supervisor then declares another ballot should be blank. The supervisor admits to scanning the same batches of ballots repeatedly.

The speaker worked with around 80 coworkers in two shifts at the election headquarters. They were all instructed to falsify the ballot package by backdating it each day with a different date, even though it was never the correct date. Multiple supervisors were involved in giving these instructions.

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.