reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Both parties have a history of questioning election legitimacy. Hillary Clinton and Jimmy Carter, among others, delegitimized Donald Trump's 2016 win. Clinton continues to be unrepentant about this. The Obama administration allegedly used government apparatus to spread the falsehood that Russia secured Trump's election, despite initial intelligence reports deeming Russian meddling insignificant. According to the speaker, there was a conspiracy using government and intel agencies to delegitimize Trump. The speaker cites John Brennan's flippant response to the unverified Steele dossier as evidence. The speaker references the book "Rigged" by Molly Hemingway, detailing Democratic disregard. Democrats, including Raskin, voted against seating electors in the past, claiming the election was rigged. The speaker concludes that both parties have accused each other of election malfeasance and suggests moving forward.

Both parties have a history of questioning election legitimacy. Hillary Clinton and Jimmy Carter, among others, delegitimized Donald Trump's 2016 win. Clinton continues to be unrepentant about this. The Obama administration used the apparatus of government to spread the falsehood that Russia got Trump elected, even though intelligence reports judged Russian meddling as insignificant. According to the speaker, there was a conspiracy using government and intel agencies to delegitimize Trump. The speaker cites John Brennan's flippant response to the unverified Steele dossier as evidence of this. The speaker references the book "Rigged" by Molly Hemingway, which details the Democrats' disregard. Democrats, including Raskin, voted against seating electors in 2016, claiming the election was rigged. The speaker concludes that both parties have accused each other of election malfeasance and suggests moving forward.

In 2016, there was controversy surrounding the hacking and recount of voting machines in Michigan and Wisconsin. Hillary Clinton was upset because the machines she had hacked got unhacked, and Jill Stein demanded a recount. It was believed that Hillary expected the same treatment as Joe Biden in the election. She had been promised that the game would be rigged for her, but it didn't happen. This caused her to lose her mind and throw things. In 2016, someone counterhacked the people who were going to hack on Hillary's behalf, but that didn't happen this time. The speakers know who did it but will save that for another discussion.

The discussion centers on the integrity of the 2020 election processes and how Georgia’s handling of audits and recounts could shape reforms for 2026. Speaker 0 argues that ensuring elections represent the will of the people is fundamental, noting that Trump and his allies made a spectacle in 2020 by pursuing audits and recounts and even the Capitol insurrection, yet Georgia, among other states, would not have allowed Trump to win even without Georgia’s results. They claim Democrats and progressives avoided touching the issue in 2024 despite Trump’s unexpected nationwide sweep, and criticize the inability to conduct a proper recount. Speaker 1 warns that Trump’s team is likely to present ballots and photographs from 2020 to claim irregularities, arguing that there were thousands of irregularities in Fulton County, with miscounts and ballot manipulation possible, though there is no evidence that these irregularities would have changed the Georgia result. They contend that irregularities occurred both ways and tended to offset, but many records were destroyed and the recount and audit lacked quality. The speaker asserts that 2026 must avoid untrustworthy machines and inadequate audit/recount processes. The speakers discuss the possibility that Trump’s supporters will use information from the DOJ to misrepresent the facts, stating that even if facts were presented, they would expose known errors in the certified processes. They allege that ballots were counted multiple times during the recount, including counting some ballots two or three times and even introducing fake test ballots to force outcomes. Marilyn is cited as noting that a Barack Obama appointee judge confirmed the unreliability of Dominion machines, and that a demonstration at DEF CON Voting Village showed how easily a Dominion machine could be hacked. Jessica is referenced as discussing Phil Davis, a pro-Trump election integrity figure who admitted that Biden won Georgia despite his broader views. The point is to emphasize that, even among election integrity experts with conservative leanings, there is belief that Biden won Georgia. The conversation returns to Raffensperger, who selected the machines and the audit/recount method, spending approximately $150 million on machines and avoiding transparency about errors. The guests argue that the law required a hand count at tables with representatives from both campaigns and the clerk, instead of a machine-only recount. Bypassing this process enabled the perception of fraud and contributed to the January 6 insurrection’s fuel in Georgia. A key lesson for 2026, they assert, is to implement a transparent process with hand counts and representative participation at counting tables, preventing the bypass of proper procedures and reducing the political pressure that distorts outcomes. They critique the atmosphere surrounding the 2020 aftermath as vilifying and pressure-filled, predicting a similar environment in 2026 unless genuine transparency and nonpartisan verification are pursued.

The speaker discusses cybersecurity concerns in the election system, alleging that votes are stored on servers in Germany and could be manipulated by hackers. They point to suspicious vote count changes in swing states and highlight vulnerabilities in the software that could allow for vote manipulation. The speaker questions the transparency of the election process and calls for investigations into potential fraud. In Georgia, a hand recount of all ballots was announced following demands from the Trump campaign.

In 2016, it was known that hacking could occur during the presidential election. The election results were surprisingly close compared to the polls, indicating possible interference. However, no US states examined enough paper ballots to determine if the computers were hacked. This revealed a significant gap in our system. With a deadline approaching for states to finalize their electoral college votes, there was a need to expose any fraud that may have occurred. Election integrity advocates struggled to find a solution to ensure the examination of physical evidence that could detect cyber attacks.

Hillary Clinton conceded the election to Trump on the night of the election, but later expressed that she believed he was an illegitimate president. While one side argues she is the original election denier, the other counters that she accepted the outcome but was disappointed. The discussion highlights the difference between conceding an election and questioning its legitimacy afterward. Clinton's statements about Trump being illegitimate are cited, but there’s a debate over whether her disappointment equates to denial. Ultimately, the conversation reflects on the complexities of election outcomes and perceptions of legitimacy.

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.

In this video, the speaker discusses the importance of the recounts in the election and the evidence they provide. They mention that a crowdfunding campaign led by Jill Stein and the Green Party raised over $5,000,000 in just two days for the recounts. This amount exceeded the money raised for Stein's entire presidential campaign and involved 160,000 individual donors. The speaker emphasizes the significant number of people who are passionate about the integrity of elections. The video concludes by stating that now that they have the funds and a candidate, they are ready to proceed with the recounts.

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 notes that they have been advocating for hand recounts for twenty years.

The concern was that backpedaling from conceding the victory to Donald Trump would be seen as a threat to democracy. During the 2016 presidential debate, Trump's refusal to say he would accept the election results was considered horrifying by Clinton. There were two possible interpretations: either he wouldn't accept the result when settled, or he wanted to examine the evidence to ensure it wasn't rigged. Clinton took a firm stance that not accepting the election result immediately was a threat to democracy, so any deviation from that would have been a political problem.

President, people are concerned about whether the Trump team has taken the necessary steps to prevent cheating in future elections. They also wonder if the cheating that occurred during the last election will happen again. I received these questions frequently. I campaigned vigorously, holding seven large rallies in one day, traveling from Florida to Iowa. Despite this effort, things changed late in the evening when numerous ballots appeared, and at 3:02 in the morning, something bad happened. I believe we won by a significant margin and have evidence to support it, which we will release in the coming months.

I spoke to law enforcement agencies, urging them to collect forensic evidence from computers to prove or refute election fraud claims. Despite my requests, the evidence was not gathered. Chain of custody logs and records in Delaware County are missing, making 100,000+ ballots questionable. There is no remedy for this situation, which could impact the presidential election certification.

Tomorrow is January 6th, an important constitutional date. The speaker expresses frustration that the United States does not have a clear election outcome yet. They mention their experience in other countries, where they have helped run elections and encouraged those countries to follow their example. The speaker finds it embarrassing that their own country is facing election challenges. Another speaker agrees and mentions that according to U.S. law, if there are no poll watchers, the election should be redone. They ask for suggestions on what President Trump and the people should do. The first speaker suggests a 10-day pause to allow for recounts in select states, ensuring that the ballots are constitutional and not fraudulent. They mention issues like backdated ballots, phony ballots, and dead voters.

The speaker states that the recounts support the correct election outcome, providing assurance that Donald Trump won without doubt. While there is no strong evidence of fraud or cyberattacks, the incomplete counts make verification imperfect. President Obama ordered an investigation into hacking before leaving office, with intelligence agencies agreeing that hacking likely influenced the outcome. Although the speaker can sleep at night, they cannot completely rule out fraud. Another speaker mentions that the recounts further confirm that the election was not hacked, increasing confidence in the election. However, they also discovered that hacking a US presidential election would be even easier than initially believed.

The speaker believes the Russian hack of the DNC contributed to an atmosphere focused on Hillary Clinton's emails and the Clinton Foundation, overshadowing policy debates and impacting the election. The speaker states that the CIA assessment that the hack was intended to improve Trump's chances shouldn't be surprising, as it was widely understood that the hack was helping the Trump campaign and hurting the Clinton campaign. While the president-elect has expressed admiration for Putin and a desire for cooperation, the speaker emphasizes that the consensus among intelligence agencies was that the Russian government was behind the DNC hack. The speaker notes that various agencies are still assessing the motivations behind the hack. The speaker highlights that the current information is based on CIA leaks, not an official document, and that agencies are still comparing notes. The speaker requested a report be issued before the 20th, so that unclassified aspects can be presented to the public and Congress.

At 6 o'clock in the evening, a setback occurred when New York Magazine published a story about conversations with the Clinton campaign. The story was based on information leaked by someone present, but it got most of the facts wrong. The story claimed that there was persuasive evidence of election hacking, which was the opposite of what they were actually looking for. The speaker's phone started ringing nonstop, and they wrote a medium piece explaining the need for recounts to examine the evidence and determine if hacking had occurred. They emphasized the importance of looking at the paper evidence in 2016.

The transcript states that Russia claimed to have very, very damaging information—high level DNC emails relating specifically to Hillary Clinton's physical and mental health and DNC leaders questioning whether, if elected, she would be capable of carrying out the duties of the presidency. Russia had this information. If they wanted to swing the election for Donald Trump, they would have released it in September or October 2016 at a pivotal time to swing momentum in Donald Trump’s direction and damage Hillary Clinton’s campaign. They did not do that deliberately. They understood that Hillary Clinton would likely be the inevitable president of The United States. They didn’t think Trump could win like a lot of other people. And so they were withholding this damaging information about Hillary Clinton and planning to release it in the days or weeks leading up to her inaugurate expected inauguration in order to once again sow chaos within The United

- The discussion centers on Fulton County’s ballot-seizure case and the implication that the affidavit relied on was built from recycled conspiracy theories by a known conspiracy figure. It is asserted that the judge was not told these issues had already been relitigated, and that the administration appears intent on applying the same approach elsewhere. - Question raised: can these efforts be stopped, given the underlying pattern and what the other side is pursuing? And what is their plan for 2026 if they lack the 2020 conspiracies to lean on? - Jen notes her role as counsel in the Fulton County matter and declines to comment further on the specifics. - Jessica forecasts that Trump-aligned actors will pull out 2020 ballots and photos, arguing that the numbers don’t add up and that the machines were faulty and the people fudged because, allegedly, in Fulton County they did. She emphasizes that there is no evidence that the irregularities would have changed the outcome in Georgia, but acknowledges there were thousands of irregularities, with records destroyed and chain-of-custody issues, and that the recount and audit were of poor quality. She warns that in 2026 the same approach could be used again with untrustworthy machines and flawed audits, and warns that even if actual facts are shown, they would highlight known errors. - Marilyn adds the point that a Barack Obama-appointee judge confirmed the unreliability of the machines and notes a demonstrator at DEFCON Voting Village showed how easily a Dominion machine can be hacked. She cites a view that Biden still won Georgia, despite the “fudged audits,” and argues that the intent behind the questionable procedures was to obscure errors. - Jessica identifies Raffensperger as the official who chose the machines and funded the expansive spending on them, suggesting he did not want critical issues to be exposed. She asserts that the process was designed to avoid scrutiny and that the results were obtained by running ballots through the machine multiple times to adjust numbers, including using test ballots to influence results. - The conversation concludes with a focus on the importance of recounts and audits, and the need for a transparent process in 2026. Jessica argues that Georgia’s issues stemmed from an audit with bogus processes and a recount conducted through machines rather than a hand count at counting tables with observers from both campaigns and the clerk. She asserts that the transparency of the counting process could have mitigated much of the controversy and that the lesson for 2026 is to implement a transparent system.

On election night and in the days that followed, it appeared that the results from the tabulating machines were not accurate. A decision by the board was made to do a hand recount to ensure accurate results of the election. Speaker 1 asks, “Wasn't that the DeKalb County election board attorney? Play it again, Sam.” The line about the hand recount is repeated: “And a decision by the board was made to do a hand recount to ensure accurate results of the election.” Speaker 1 responds, “What? Isn't that what I've been saying for twenty years?” The exchange ends with Speaker 0 stating, “Do a hand recount.”

The conversation centers on email leaks and allegations of hacking connected to a political context. One speaker notes that “one hour later, WikiLeaks starts dropping my emails,” suggesting a link between the leaks and his own communications. The group references those emails being public and questions about what might have been coincidental, with lines like “Just get lost into the public. One could say that there might those things might not have been a coincidence” and mentions “those things” that may or may not have been intended to surface. Two days after the initial events, the speaker recounts that “the FBI contacted me, the first thing the agent said to me was, I don’t know if you’re aware, but your email account had might have been hacked.” He confirms awareness of the hacking, stating “I said yes,” and recalls a demand that he change how he is addressed, with references to being told, “From now on, you won’t call me your father,” and “I you will call me your father,” coupled with the assertion “You think you hide shit, don’t you? Just get lost.” The dialogue shifts to broader implications: other campaign officials’ emails were divulged earlier than October 7, and the speakers discuss uncertainty about what exactly had been compromised, noting “there was a document that appeared to come from my account” and realizing “they had the contents of my email account.” The last time one speaker talked to the FBI is mentioned in the context of these disclosures. A separate thread introduces media narratives, with a speaker asking, “Media is telling you the entire story is a hoax or fake news. But what does that even mean?” and stating, “I spent the last month investigating. So what exactly is Pizzagate? And are there any actual facts to support the story?” There is a sense of frustration about interpretation and evidence, captured in the line, “They’re hearing what they wanna hear. They’re not really listening to what I’m telling them.” The transcript ends with a brief aside from another speaker, “What’s that?” indicating confusion or a request for clarification, tied to the ongoing discussion about the emails, hacks, and the Pizzagate inquiry.

A senior law enforcement officer witnessed unauthorized individuals inserting USBs into voting machines multiple times. Despite demands for forensic evidence collection, no action was taken. Chain of custody logs and records in Delaware County are missing, leaving 100,000-120,000 ballots in question with no remedy available. The speaker believes certifying the vote would be unconscionable. Translation: A senior law enforcement officer saw unauthorized people inserting USBs into voting machines multiple times. Despite requests for forensic evidence collection, no action was taken. Chain of custody logs and records in Delaware County are missing, leaving 100,000-120,000 ballots in question with no solution available. The speaker believes certifying the vote would be unethical.

At 2 o'clock in the morning, the speaker noticed that Trump was ahead by 10% in the election. However, their monitor suddenly rebooted, leading them to question the accuracy of the numbers. When they woke up later, Biden was in the lead. The speaker mentioned that only 120,000 out of the expected 170,000 absentee ballots had been processed by midnight. They believed there were still around 50,000 missing. The speaker also mentioned Sydney Powell's discussion about this issue in Rudy Giuliani's press conference. They noted that voting had stopped in the middle of the night, but only those at the processing tables would have witnessed the laptops rebooting. When asked about the political affiliation of those thrown out, the speaker said that if they clapped, it indicated they were Republicans.

It is important to put the investigation into Trump and his associates aside. There is no denying that the Russians interfered in the election to help Trump, hurt Hillary Clinton, and destabilize democracy. According to public testimony before Congress by intelligence professionals, this interference is a clear and present danger to the country. If the roles were reversed and Hillary Clinton had won, she would have stopped at nothing to find out what happened and ensure it never happens again. She would have stood up in front of the country and said that even if it advantaged her, she would not rest until the truth was uncovered.

We tried to convince the Clinton team to do recounts, but it didn't work. Then, David Jefferson came up with a new idea. He realized that in many states, any candidate can request a recount. We found Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, who agreed to help. Jill has a history of supporting election integrity and had about 1% of the vote. Her willingness to assist was a crucial moment for our efforts.