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.

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.

The speaker claims that real-time Edison data reveals election data manipulation. According to the speaker, Seidl receives raw election data directly from election officials in at least nine states. The speaker alleges that an additive process should show more votes, not deletions, in each interval report. However, a video of Edison reports allegedly shows pauses, oscillation, and deletions in total, in-person, and mail-in votes. The speaker claims this is the algorithm trying to figure out the math problem. The speaker points to North Carolina and Georgia counties as examples, noting Seidl directly contracts with Georgia. The speaker then plays a clip of someone discussing estimated vote percentages dropping, suggesting the reported results are not actual results. The speaker questions the calling of races with razor-thin margins, particularly Arizona, based on projections and alleged impossible data anomalies. The speaker asserts that historically, those counting votes called races, but now machines and news outlets do, deterring challenges.

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.

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.

The speaker states that the data does not align with normal legal voting processes and lacks consistency. They mention that the certified data, which is also reported by the New York Times and networks, shows negative errors and fraudulent votes. They suggest that either the secretary of state's office is certifying flawed results or someone is providing them with incorrect information. They emphasize that the certified votes for Georgia contain negative swings and decrements, which are errors and do not accurately represent the state's voters. No blame is assigned, but the focus is on highlighting the discrepancies in the certification process.

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.

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.

The speaker discusses a discrepancy in the vote count between Biden and Trump, stating that the actual results showed Trump with a significant lead. They explain that the voting machine is designed to generate errors, which then go to adjudication where thousands of ballots can be bulk adjudicated with one click. A high rate of 68% of the ballots needed adjudication, compared to the federal allowable rate of 1 in 125,000. The program is intentionally designed to generate errors and move votes from one candidate to another. However, on November 4, all system files, adjudication files, and internet files were deleted, which is significant.

The speaker discusses an incident where there were errors in the vote count for Biden and Trump. They explain that the voting machine generated a high number of errors, which were then sent for adjudication. The rate of ballots needing adjudication was 68%, much higher than the federal allowable rate of 1 in 125,000. The speaker suggests that this program is designed to generate errors and manipulate votes. They also mention that on November 4th, all system files related to adjudication were deleted. This is seen as a significant issue.

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 highlights the vulnerability of voting machines to malware, which can easily manipulate election results. They argue that even if voters had perfect recall, most wouldn't take the time to verify their ballots due to the complexity of the machines. The responsibility of ensuring accuracy should not fall on the voters, but on the system itself. The speaker mentions a recent flaw in the machines that allows races and bar lines to be added to a barcode, rendering the ballot unreadable. They criticize the weak audit language in the bill, which lacks risk limiting audits and only applies to one county. The precertification audit mentioned is not a risk limiting audit. The speaker expresses frustration with the bill's unanswered questions.

The transcript presents a broad, multi-voiced warning about the vulnerability of U.S. voting systems and the ease with which they can be hacked, hacked-stopping demonstrations, and the security gaps that remain even as elections continue. Key points and claims: - Virginia stopped using touch screen voting because it is “so vulnerable,” and multiple speakers argue that all voting machines must be examined to prevent hacking and attacks. Speaker 0, Speaker 1, and others emphasize systemic vulnerability across states. - Researchers have repeatedly demonstrated that ballot recording machines and other voting systems are susceptible to tampering, with examples that even hackers with limited knowledge can breach machines in minutes (Speaker 2, Speaker 3). - In 2018, electronic voting machines in Georgia and Texas allegedly deleted votes for certain candidates or switched votes from one candidate to another (Speaker 4). - The largest voting machine vendors are accused of cybersecurity violations, including directing that remote access software be installed, which would make machines attractive to fraudsters and hackers (Speaker 5). - Across the country, voting machines are described as easily hackable, with contention that three companies control many systems and that individual machines pose significant risk (Speaker 2, Speaker 6). - Many states use antiquated machines vulnerable to hacking, with demonstrations showing how easily workers could hack electronic voting machines (Speakers 7, 2). - A substantial portion of American voters use machines researchers say have serious security flaws, including backdoors (Speaker 5). Some states reportedly have no paper trail or only partial paper records (Speaker 5, various). - Aging systems are noted as failing due to use of unsupported software such as Windows XP/2000, increasing vulnerability to cyber attacks (Speaker 9). An observed concern is that 40 states use machines at least a decade old (Speaker 9). - Specific past intrusions are cited: Illinois and Arizona in 2016 had election websites hacked, with malware installed and sensitive voter information downloaded (Speaker 4). - There is debate about whether votes were changed in the 2016 election; one speaker notes that experts say you cannot claim—without forensic analysis—that votes were not changed (Speaker 17, 18). - The existence of paper records is contested: some jurisdictions lack verifiable paper trails, undermining the ability to prove results are legitimate (Speaker 5, 9). - Some devices rely on cellular modems to transmit results after elections, creating additional avenues for interception and manipulation; vendors acknowledge modems but vary in how they frame Internet connectivity (Speakers 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21). The debate covers whether cellular transmissions truly isolate from the Internet or provide a backdoor, with demonstrations showing that modems can be connected to Internet networks and could be exploited. - The “programming” phase of elections—where memory cards are prepared with candidates and contests—can be a vector for spread of rogue software if an attacker compromises the election management system (Speaker 11, Speaker 10). - A scenario is outlined in which an attacker identifies weak swing states, probes them, hacks the election management system or outside vendors, spreads malicious code to machines, and alters a portion of votes; the assumption is that many jurisdictions will not rigorously use paper records to verify computer results (Speaker 10). - A Virginia governor’s anecdote is shared: after a hack demonstrated off-site by experts, all machines were decertified and replaced with paper ballots (Speaker 16). Overall impression: the discussion paints a picture of pervasive vulnerability, aging and diverse systems, reliance on modems and networked components, potential for targeted manipulation in close elections, and the need for upgrades and robust forensic capabilities, while noting contested claims about the extent of past interference.

Speaker 0 asserts that there was direct access to the Antrim County election management system (EMS). They claim that on November 5, an anonymous user logged on to the EMS remotely with escalated privileges and made changes to the database while attempting to retabulate the election. This, they say, constitutes a significant development, proving that the machines were remotely accessed and that access was by an anonymous user with elevated system privileges. Speaker 0 also discusses ballots, referring to black boxes on the side of the ballot, noting that there are 59 such black boxes. They state that forensic images show that in Antrim County, blocks 15, 18, 28, 41, and 44 were intentionally modified. The modification involved altering the height, width, and shape of those blocks with the intention of generating errors. They describe the consequence of such modifications: by modding these specific blocks, they were able to cause rejections for Republican ballots. Specifically, they claim that if a ballot voted for Donald Trump and was fed into the machine, that ballot was rejected at a rate 20% higher than for Joe Biden ballots.

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 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.

- Speaker 0 asserts that mail-in ballots are corrupt and that a Republican-led effort will end mail-in ballots, including drafting an executive order by “the best lawyers in the country.” They claim the U.S. is nearly the only country using mail-in ballots and cite “massive fraud all over the place,” arguing that secure, paper-ballot elections with watermarking would produce faster results (claims that paper ballots provide results the same night, whereas machines allegedly take two weeks). - The conversation references a specific election night anomaly: a block of 138,000 votes (Speaker 1 and Speaker 2 confirm “138,000” votes) all reportedly voting for Biden with no Trump votes in that segment, described as inexplicable and not consistent with expected linear reporting. They note the timing as around 04:30–06:30 in the morning and suggest the results should not be linear given numerous counters reporting across states. They also complain that Nevada stopped counting mid-day, calling it inexplicable and illogical. - Speaker 4 claims a counting software glitch caused a 6,000-vote swing in a county, where ballots counted for Democrats were miscalculated for Republicans; she states that 47 counties use the same software. - Speaker 5 demonstrates concerns about voting-machine security: he shows how a bad actor could gain full admin access in under two minutes by opening a device, removing the card reader, and bypassing error messages, implying easy manipulation of tabulation in 18 states using the machine. - Speaker 6 describes observed ballot processing irregularities: a ballot-stuffing environment where ballots are stamped and filled in rapidly at the top of tickets, with security oversight present but gaps noted in workflow. - Speaker 7 discusses absentee/mail-in ballots with suspicions about sequence numbers: numbers appeared almost sequential, suggesting they could not be from mailed-in ballots, as mailed ballots typically arrive at different numbers; they note there was no date on envelopes and that some details would not be in poll books or the system, alleging irregularities in how ballots were handled. - Speaker 8 reports ongoing theft of duplicate ballots: a table for duplicates existed, but ballots were copied and redistributed at various tables, with duplicates not fully processed and ballots stashed under boxes; the speaker claims this occurred throughout the night. - Speaker 9 recounts a local media denial of fraud at the TCF center, contrasted with video obtained later showing a van delivering ballots after hours; she describes escort cars, a back-and-forth of ballots, and suggests the presence of unobserved ballots and a lack of witnesses during tabulation. She notes that the video was shared publicly and led to the suspension of a social-media account. - Speaker 10 provides a timeline from October 21, detailing a driver delivering mail-in ballots from New York to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and then to Lancaster, with the driver faced hours of waiting, lack of slips, and unclear purpose for moving the load; the driver states that this was the only time he transported mail-in ballots and expresses a belief in the importance of honest elections for Americans.

County technical employees reported independently that the vote counts recorded by machines and stored on USB drives changed between the closing of polls and their reopening the next morning. Votes appeared and disappeared overnight. Attempts to verify the integrity of these voting machines were limited to a superficial visual inspection of the USB drives, and a forensic examination was denied.

There was fraud in the election, including dead people voting. The machines played a role in this fraud. Instead of having hidden ballots, they stored them in a secret folder. After the polls closed, the machines matched unvoted ballots with unvoted voters. This was evident when the vote percentage reached 99% but the votes kept coming in. The denominator, which represents the remaining ballots, started increasing, indicating that they were unloading the hidden ballots and matching them to unvoted voters. This allowed them to barely cross the finish line with enough votes.

Clark County technical employees reported independently discovering that the number of votes recorded by voting machines and stored on USB drives would change between the time the polls were closed and when they were reopened. Votes were allegedly appearing and disappearing overnight. When attempts were made to verify the integrity of these voting machines, only a visual inspection of the outside of a USB drive was permitted, and a forensic examination was denied.

The speaker discusses the importance of paper documents, such as the Declaration of Independence and voting ballots. They explain how voting machines can be manipulated, using the example of a dollar bill being rejected by a vending machine. They question why mail-in ballots in heavily Democratic areas are consistently accurate, while those in Republican areas are frequently out of calibration. The speaker suggests that human intervention allows for interpretation of voter intent, which they believe is unacceptable.

The speaker discusses how the vote total may have been altered through the HAMMER program and ScoreCard software, affecting the election outcome. They mention a computer glitch in Michigan that favored President Trump, suggesting similar issues in other states. They question the sudden appearance of thousands of ballots for Biden, deeming it statistically improbable.

The speaker asserts that there was direct access to the Antrim County election management system (EMS). According to the forensic images, on November 5 an anonymous user logged on to the EMS remotely with escalated privileges and made changes to the database while attempting to retabulate the election. This is presented as a major development indicating remote access to the machines, and specifically remote access by an anonymous user with elevated privileges. Additionally, the speaker describes intentional modifications to ballot components. Ballots have black boxes along the side, with boxes 59 in total. The forensic images allegedly show that blocks 15, 18, 28, 41, and 44 were intentionally modified, altering their height and width to generate errors. The claimed consequence of these modifications is that errors were produced which led to ballot rejections. Specifically, ballots in which a voter chose Donald Trump and then fed the ballot into the machine were rejected at a rate 20% higher than ballots for Joe Biden.