reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Two employees from Clark County Technical came forward independently and revealed that they found discrepancies in the number of votes recorded by voting machines. The votes would change between the closing of the polls at night and their reopening the next morning, with votes appearing and disappearing overnight. When they tried to verify the integrity of the voting machines, they were only allowed to visually inspect the outside of a USB drive, which was useless. They were denied a forensic examination.

A Georgia election official, who is a Democrat, discovered that none of the straight party Republican tickets in the recent runoff were being scanned. She contacted Dominion, the company responsible for the voting machines, and expressed her concern about the ballots going to adjudication instead of being counted. Dominion insisted that she just push the green button. Frustrated, she threatened to contact the local media. Dominion quickly sent someone to fix the issue. The Dominion representative acknowledged the problem and made a phone call. Ten minutes later, he returned and assured her that everything was fixed. It is important to note that the voting machines were not connected to the internet.

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.

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 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 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.

Speaker 0: The election was stolen. A graph shows people who worked for ES&S, Hart, Dominion Voting Systems, ClearBallot, and Smartmatic, recycling through companies. People who worked at Dominion Voting Systems are entering the political sphere and taking over election offices; one county in Texas, after hiring someone who worked for Dominion, went blue for the first time. The speaker walks through information: Dominion using “Serbian technology with Chinese characteristics.” Huawei Bank is involved; there’s no public board saying Bank of China funds anything, but research on Roaming Networks—a relatively unknown Serbian company until 2013—shows it signed a value-added contract with Huawei Bank. Huawei is “the Bank of China.” Roaming Networks built ICT infrastructure and data centers in Serbia, with owner Nenad Kovac identified as the enterprise partner. Some Roaming Networks information may come off their site after this presentation. Dominion Voting Systems has a corporate office in Serbia; a screenshot of the office and a developer on their site is noted. A Serbian legislative leader said, “I know Dominion Voting Systems back in November. They have an office here.” Dominion started rapidly removing Serbian coders from their site/LinkedIn. Code is built in Serbia for a system used in the United States, using infrastructure funded by China, not just China but the Bank of China. A slide discusses Dominion’s enterprise partnership with Huawei, added to the restricted list on 05/16/2019. Roaming Networks references show Dominion Voting Systems using a pure flash storage solution in Dominion’s data center. A photo of Sacramento shows Dominion hardware coming from China, with a bill of lading from a Chinese supplier to Dominion’s McKinney, Texas office. Testing and approval of Dominion hardware show similarities with Smartmatic; the same hardware with different branding. They claim a “tail” behind the scenes—evidence of connections among ES&S, Hart, Dominion, ClearBallot, Smartmatic, with people cycling through these companies. People who once worked at Dominion are now entering election offices; in Texas, a county that hired a former Dominion employee “went blue” by accident with ES&S involved. The speaker calls out Gina Griswold for commenting on Tina Peters and Mesa, and Matt Crane’s role as Arapahoe County clerk and recorder, now head of the County Clerks Association; Crane’s wife previously worked for Dominion and Sequoia Voting Systems. The speaker asserts a public breach of trust requires an audit; if there’s nothing to hide, audits should restore trust. They argue, whether Dominion is the bad actor or not, removal of logs, altering code, and a “trusted build” are problematic, and emphasize the need for audits and investigations to restore trust in elections. Speaker 1: Indicators: a senior Dominion vice president’s name appears on patents; a software engineer involved in the Wayne County, Michigan tabulation center is connected to the software. Coincidences accumulate, suggesting there is a preponderance of evidence with affidavits across the country. The speaker asks which computer produced certain files analyzed yesterday; whether it came from the central count or precincts. Speaker 0: Answers with a non-answer, noting they imaged the main EMS and the tabulation system; servers in the county coordinate precinct information and house audit reports, cast vote reports, error reports, adjudication reports, and access logs. Thumb drives can contaminate the county and state systems if connected to a machine; it’s not unique to Dominion or voting systems but a general risk. They emphasize avoiding white noise and focusing on facts: Dominion is in Serbia; Huawei Bank funds the enterprise partnership and Serbia-based data centers; code is written in Serbia; imaging shows fingerprints of this. They call for audits, note deviations in Georgia (ballots appearing identical in different batches, a shredder truck before January 20 in Georgia, and a leaky arena water claim later proven to be a leaky toilet), and point to media silence. They argue against accepting the gold standard claim and highlight perceived connections to Soros-funded groups. They stress deviations in state and county behavior, urge audits, and compare the election system to a serial killer—unacceptable to let foreign systems run it. Speaker 2: Adds that with 100 indicators, a pattern emerges; reiterates the need to examine which files came from which computer, and questions the integrity of the central count. Speaker 3: Notes the risk of a non-internet-connected thumb drive introducing malware; emphasizes auditing all machines for that reason.

Linda McLaughlin and her colleagues present a data-focused argument alleging election fraud in Georgia, supported by multiple data analyses and demonstrations. - Linda McLaughlin introduces the data integrity group and states that data is numerical and non-partisan; she aims to remedy a lack of presented data in the discussion. - Dave Labou, a lead data scientist, explains that their analysis across precincts, counties, and the state identified over 40 data points of negative voting or vote switching across candidates totaling over 200,000 votes. Separately, machine learning algorithms used for anomaly detection in fraud detection flagged over 500 precincts with over 1,000,000 corresponding votes showing suspicious activity. He emphasizes that the process is scientific and not tied to political affiliations. - Labou uses a banking analogy to illustrate data integrity concerns: in hypothetical online banking, deposits or withdrawals being redirected or split would indicate fraudulent activity. He applies this concept to voting data, arguing that the voting system data aligns with the Secretary of State data used to certify results, yet exhibits patterns akin to transfers and reallocation not authorized by voters. - He states that the data are publicly available but require advanced programming to extract, parse, and join datasets. Their independent team has made all analysis, programs, and data public to allow replication and has produced videos to translate the analysis for broader understanding. - A key claim is that receiving over 90% in a precinct is a marker for fraud; in Fulton County, more than 150 precincts voted 90% or more for Biden, and in the statewide race (decided by less than 13,000 votes), these 150 Fulton precincts accounted for 152,000 Biden votes, described as a clear indicator of suspicious or fraudulent activity. - Labou and team present a series of visuals and explanations indicating explicit vote count switching, e.g., in Dodge County, where Trump’s votes appear to be subtracted while Biden’s counts increase in tandem with county updates, leading to a shift in totals that would not appear in state totals due to timing of updates. - They reference adjudication as the review of ballots flagged during scanning, noting that only ballots with a contest causing questions about how the computer reads them are adjudicated. - In DeKalb County, they assert it is statistically impossible for nine out of ten voters to vote for Biden in 94 precincts. - They describe a data flow in Fulton County: poll pad check-in, ballot image saved on the machine, SD cards transported to drop-off locations, escorted to a warehouse, run through Democracy Suite, exported to a Dominion server, and inserted into a SQL Server database before transmission to the Secretary of State and data aggregators. - A critical point is the vulnerability within the county update data-entry process: the square box detailing data-entry options in the election software allows updating vote batches, projecting batches, and generating new or temporary batches that can be injected directly into the tally; these options can be validated and published, enabling potential manipulation before server upload. - They pose questions about validation: whether two observers from both parties were present during SD card transmissions and drop-off transmissions, and whether there is a public log of exchanges at drop-off points. They challenge why elected officials have not pursued these questions about voting integrity. - Labou notes the process is machine-to-machine and, by design, should not decrement sums; any decrement requires a robust explanation, and their data suggest negative drops are inconsistent with normal sequential processes. Speaker 2 clarifies the data sources (CITL election night data and Edison/New York Times data) and asserts that the process from poll pads to secretary of state is machine-driven, with no human entry of totals, thereby removing human entry error as an explanation for observed negative changes. Speaker 4 adds emphasis on the validation and potential vulnerabilities in the software options used for election administration, underscoring the need for transparency and inquiry into the electoral process.

There are concerns about duplicate ballots in the audit. The speaker mentions that there should be a lower count due to duplicates, but they are not seeing any reference to duplicates in the forms. Speaker 1 explains that duplicate ballots are created when the original ballot is damaged and cannot be processed. These duplicates should have a matching 6-digit serial number with the original damaged ballot, but they cannot find the matching originals. Speaker 2 confirms this, stating that they are finding duplicate ballots without corresponding serial numbers on the damaged originals. They are struggling to match the duplicated ballots with the missing originals.

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.

Clark County Technical employees independently found votes appearing and disappearing at night. They were only allowed a visual inspection of a USB drive, not a forensic examination.

Two Clark County technical employees independently revealed that they found discrepancies in the number of votes recorded by voting machines. The votes would change between the closing of polls at night and their reopening the next morning. This means that votes were appearing and disappearing during the night. When they tried to verify the integrity of the voting machines, they were only allowed to visually inspect the outside of a USB drive, which was useless. They were denied a forensic examination.

In the exchange, concerns are raised about mail-in ballots in Allegheny and Philadelphia counties and how they were counted. Speaker 0 notes that ballots were counted without observers, citing 682,770 ballots observed and asking about the 1,823,148 mailed-out ballots, contrasted with a final count showing 2,589,242 mail-in ballots. The core question is: what explains the roughly 700,000 mail-in ballots that “appeared from nowhere”? Speaker 1 responds that their cyber team uses white-hat hacking techniques to gather publicly available information from the secretary of state’s website, which has been updated as late as 11:16 this morning with provisional and mail-in ballots, though those numbers continue to change. He adds that the 2,500,000 figure is no longer on the website, and it has “just been taken off.” There is no annotation explaining why. Speaker 2 then describes an on-the-ground observation: a deputy sheriff, a senior law enforcement officer, was seen not being observed and walking in with baggies, with USBs being inserted into machines. The witness claims to have personally witnessed this 24 times, with additional witnesses including Democrat poll watchers. They were told by an attorney that every election leaves a couple of USB cards in the voting machines to be brought back by the warehouse manager, but this account is contradicted by law enforcement and other officials. The witness states that 47 USB cards are missing and “they’re nowhere to be found,” and that 32 to 30 cards uploaded were not present in the live vote update. The witness demanded timely live upload of vote results, which showed 50,000 votes; they assert those votes were for Vice President Biden, though they note that identifying who those votes were for should not matter to a computer scientist. Speaker 1 emphasizes that forensic evidence from the computers was not obtained: the procedure would involve turning off the computer, imaging the drive with BitLocker, under law enforcement observation, which would take about an hour for five machines. This forensic imaging was never performed, despite objections three weeks earlier. They later learned that virtually all chain-of-custody logs, yellow sheets, and forensic records in Delaware County were gone; a signing party attempted to recreate the logs with poll workers but was unsuccessful in recovering them all. The discussion concludes with a claim that there are 100,000 to 120,000 ballots, both mail-in and USB, in question, and that there is no remedy or “cure” within the local charter for certifying a presidential vote, leaving the speaker asserting that nobody could certify the vote in good conscience.

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 more than once, and the speaker confirms that they have done it. They explain that they kept scanning the same batches of ballots. The speaker mentions that they have set the system to handle ambiguous marks and overvotes, but it should also handle blank ballots. They scan a blank ballot and accept it into the system, noting that the system does not know who touched the ballots during adjudication.

There is a discussion about 17,852 ballots that lack corresponding ballot images in the second machine count. The speakers acknowledge the significance of this number but express their inability to explain how it occurred. They mention the hope of receiving more information on Tuesday regarding this matter.

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.

Two Clark County Technical employees reported 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. Attempts to verify the integrity of the voting machines were met with limitations; only a superficial visual inspection of the USB drives was permitted, while a forensic examination was denied.

The speaker believes that the rejected ballots were placed in a separate box to be later counted at the headquarters. The rejection happened at the voting center due to invalid ballots that wouldn't match any tabulator's program. The question arises if Maricopa County was contacted to clarify their processes. It is mentioned that the rejected ballots would be sent to central tabulation to be duplicated onto readable ballots and inserted into the system. However, there is no way for voters to confirm if this process was actually carried out, which raises concerns.

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.

- 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.

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.

The speakers discuss the flow of ballots and the involvement of a company called Runback. Trucks delivering ballots arrived on the third, then the fourth, and the fifth, continuing for days. The last day of the speaker’s involvement was the tenth, and trucks were still coming in. The ballots were coming from Runback, a company that does high‑speed scanning and printing of duplications, and the speaker mentions military ballots being produced or processed by Runback, though there is uncertainty about exactly what Runback was doing. When asked whether the ballots were printed or scanned off-site, the speaker is unsure. It is stated that all the high‑speed scanning occurs at Runback, and that those ballots go to Runback. There were no observers at Runback, and the speaker had not been called to work there. The question is raised about whether the scanning was done on-site at the Maricopa County structure, but the response indicates that scanning was not on-site and occurred at Runback where there are very high‑speed scanners. The question of whether Dominion equipment was involved is addressed: the ballots being scanned were not related to Dominion. The purpose of scanning the ballots in advance of tabulation on Dominion equipment is then explained: they were duplications of ballots that would not read through the tabulation machines, specifically ballots that came in from military and overseas. However, the speaker notes there were more ballots than just those, with trays of ballots being brought in, and uncertainty remains about where the rest were coming from. The speaker suggests that the remaining questions about the sources of these ballots should be answered by the county employees. In summary, the discussion centers on: a sequence of ballot deliveries over several days; Runback handling high‑speed scanning and duplications off-site; uncertainty about whether ballots were printed or scanned and by whom; the absence of observers at Runback; scanners used were not Dominion; the purpose of off-site scanning was to duplicate ballots that wouldn’t read through the tabulation machines, including military and overseas ballots; and unresolved questions about the origin of additional ballots, which require explanation from county staff. The exchange ends with a note that the remaining questions about the ballots’ origins are for the county employees to explain.

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.

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.