TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

I discovered the source of how ineligible individuals are being added to voter rolls. It's an organization called the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC), led by David Becker, who has a controversial background. ERIC, funded by George Soros, contracts with states to access sensitive DMV records protected under privacy laws. Their membership agreement prevents disclosure of citizenship status, allowing them to add names to voter rolls without confirming eligibility. These names are then shared with the Center for Election Innovation and Research, which received significant funding from Zuckerbucks in 2020.

The speaker describes finding a pattern of voter registrations from a single location. Specifically, they note that more than a thousand people were registered from 201 Washington Street Southwest, which they identify as a church. Upon further investigation, they claim this was part of a well-organized plan by Democrat donors, including George Soros, who allegedly poured millions into an Atlanta organization that went around this area and signed up all the homeless people. The speaker asserts this occurred during the day, when the area is typically filled with homeless individuals, and states that the organization receives money from people like George Soros to register homeless people to be able to vote from one single place. The speaker also points to another location across the Georgia state capital, stating that 48 Martin Luther King Jr Drive Southwest has registered over 2,000 people to vote from one single location. They identify the sign-ups as being conducted by the progressive organization, which they claim is signing up homeless people who are located right across the street. The speaker emphasizes the cold weather, noting it is 35 degrees at 1 PM, and reiterates that the area is normally filled with homeless people. In summary, the speaker asserts that megachurches and surrounding locations have seen extensive, single-location voter registrations, alleging deliberate campaigns funded by Soros-adjacent groups to register homeless individuals to vote from these sites. The locations highlighted include 201 Washington Street Southwest and 48 Martin Luther King Junior Drive Southwest, both described as heavily involved in large-scale registrations from single sites, with the latter attributed to a progressive organization and the former to a group described as aiding Democrats through homeless-voter registration.

Speaker 0 describes a belief that Dominion could steal an election and that he built a model to prove it. He says, “they're gonna steal it,” and that he “mathematically mapped out how they were gonna steal the election.” He claims he went to Washington, met with NSA and ODNI personnel, and with lawyers, and that he explained how he obtained the information by “going through and did a map of all the RFPs, RFQs, manuals, things that I had for Dominion, and I built backwards what the vulnerabilities would be.” He asserts that he analyzed what happened on November 3 and concluded that in the Georgia runoff for the Senate, “the Democrats are gonna take both seats.” He specifies the method: “They're gonna flip it, the vote's gonna come down. It's gonna come back up.” He states that John Eastman was present, and that his entire speech at Ellipsis with President Trump on January 6 was information that Eastman took from him after “hours of grilling me over a two day period of time.” He adds that he then went to meet with Pompeo's counsel; Pompeo was supposed to be there, and he was in a skiff at the State Department when the Capitol events occurred during a briefing with counsel. He says the counsel looked up at him and was sweating in a room that is very cool, and concludes, “And I'm like, oh, crap. He knows.” He claims that’s how he knew it was an inside job.

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 speakers tour sites in Atlanta that they say show problems with voter registration and housing. They point to 477 P Street Northeast, where they state that, according to Georgia registration rolls updated less than two weeks ago, over 70 people are actively registered to vote from that location, even though the Peachtree Pine homeless shelter behind them was closed in 2017. They question why those former residents remain on the rolls and propose that there should be automatic purges when a shelter closes. They note the property is private, boarded up, with danger and no trespassing signs, and they attempt to enter entrances but are blocked. They compare the 70-some registrations at that site to the expectation that USPS would drop off mail or voter information for residents, and they express skepticism about how such registrations could occur. They also highlight a UPS store at 2625 Piedmont Road Northeast, where they say 96 people are still registered to vote from that address, again asserting this is a violation of Georgia law because a UPS store, PO box, or virtual mailbox cannot be a place of residence. They say the law specifies that where you vote from is where you live and rest, and they emphasize that this is a clear violation. The discussion shifts to the idea that, in addition to homelessness and voting, welfare fraud could be connected to these registrations. They claim that some churches act with advocacy groups to sign up homeless people for benefits and that this could involve checks sent to addresses used for registration. They allege that an outreach program at services and mail lines at a neighboring center, the central outreach and advocacy center, handles housing needs and mail for thousands of people. They report that the organization took in almost $700,000, with a government grant of $25,000 for homeless activities and a private contractor paid $50,000 to write grant proposals to the government, implying that the county maintains a surplus in election budgets and disperses funds to such groups. The speakers assert that the county is not cleaning voter rolls, thereby inflating the number of registered voters. They speculate that if there were many such sites—perhaps hundreds—with around 100 voters each, it would be easy to influence elections, noting that Georgia uses voter ID while contrasting with states like California. They also reference the 2020 election, suggesting that in Georgia, the state was won by a narrow margin and that widespread irregularities in Fulton County could have impacted the result. They discuss potential political leanings, claiming that donations and grants to these groups likely go to Democrats, and that the same organizations could be targeting homeless people to register them to vote and to receive government assistance. The presenters visit another church area at 201 Washington Street Southwest, identifying two lines: one for services and one for mail, implying that the church’s outreach program is involved in registering people for voting and distributing mail to many individuals. They reiterate their belief that the operation is funded by state and federal grants and private donations, and they reiterate that the aggregate registrations at two churches total over a thousand. They propose a broader pattern of “targeting” vulnerable populations for political and financial gain, suggesting potential corruption and kickbacks linked to government funds and political support. They conclude with a strong assertion that the described situation constitutes corruption.

Fair Fight opened ballot drop locations last minute after the early voting deadline and succeeded in keeping them open through an emergency court hearing, but failed to block GOP watchers. An email was sent to Democrats to keep these watchers out. Meanwhile, a team member from the GOP tracked ballot transfers, capturing a car's South Carolina license plate. This is significant as Stacey Abrams and Fair Fight are linked to alleged election interference in Georgia during 2020. Abrams has since moved to South Carolina, raising concerns about similar actions there. Fair Fight's online presence connects Abrams to South Carolina, while a South Carolina car was involved in ballot transfers in Georgia. Immediate answers are demanded regarding the car's registration to prevent further issues in Georgia and to monitor South Carolina closely.

We submitted a report and complaint to the state election board, hoping for honesty from the Georgia secretary of state's office. We found manipulated votes in machine counts and falsified hand counts. We want the truth to come out and for them to acknowledge the evidence.

Nicole Shanahan and Harmeet Dhillon discuss a broad critique of how culture, law, and politics are shaping America today, focusing on cancel culture, political power, and the fight over election integrity, free speech, and American ideals. - On cancel culture and authenticity: The conversation opens with a claim that pursuing political or cultural conformity reduces genuine individuality, with examples of how people are judged or pressured to parroting “woke” messaging. They argue that this dynamic reduces people to boxes—race, gender, or immigrant status—rather than evaluating merit or character, and they describe a climate in which disagreement is met with denunciation rather than dialogue. They stress the importance of being able to be oneself and to engage across differences without being canceled. - Personal backgrounds and the RNC moment: Nicole Shanahan describes an impression of Harmeet Dhillon speaking at the RNC, highlighting the sense of inclusion across faiths, races, and women in the party. Dhillon emphasizes that this is not about a monolith “white Christian nationalist” stereotype, recounting her own experiences from Dartmouth, where she encountered hostility to stereotypes and where merit-based evaluation (writing, argumentation) defined advancement rather than identity. - Experiences with California and liberal intolerance: Dhillon notes a pervasive intolerance in California toward dissent on topics like religious liberty and climate justice, describing a glass ceiling in big law for pro-liberty work and a culture of signaling rather than substantive engagement. Shanahan adds that moving away from the Democratic Party to independence has induced personal and professional consequences, such as colleagues asking to be removed from her website due to investor concerns, reflecting broader fears about association in liberal enclaves. - Diversity, identity, and national identity: They contrast the freedom to define oneself with the coercive “bucket” approach to identity. They argue that outside liberal coastal enclaves, people feel freer to articulate individual identities and values, while California’s increasingly prescriptive DEI training is criticized as artificial and limiting. - The state of discourse and the danger of intellectual conformity: The speakers warn of a culture where questioning past work or adopting new ideas triggers denouncement and self-censorship. They cite anecdotal experiences—loss of board members, fundraising constraints, and professional risk for those who diverge from prevailing views—claiming this suppresses valuable work in fields such as climate science, criminal justice reform, and energy policy. - Reform efforts and the political landscape: They discuss the clash between incremental, evidence-based policy and a disruptive, progressivist impulse. Shanahan describes attempts to fix infrastructure of the criminal justice system through technology and data (e.g., Recidiviz) that were undermined by political dynamics. They emphasize the importance of practical, measured reform and cross-partisan cooperation, the need to focus on American integrity and governance, and the risks of pursuing “disruption” as an end in itself. - Election integrity and lawfare: A central theme is concern about how elections are conducted and contested. Dhillon outlines a view of targeted irregularities in swing counties and cites concerns about ballot counting, observation, and legal rulings. She argues that left-wing funders have built a sophisticated, twenty-year, lawfare apparatus, using nonprofits and strategic lawsuits to influence outcomes, notably pointing to the Georgia ballot-transfer activities funded by Mark Zuckerberg and his wife. She asserts that there is a broader pattern of using C3s and C4s to push political objectives while leveraging the law to contest elections. - The role of money and influence: They discuss the influence of wealthy donors, political consultants, and media in shaping party dynamics, suggesting Republicans should invest more in district attorney races, state-level prosecutions, and Supreme Court races to counterbalance the left’s long-running investment in the electoral apparatus and litigation strategy. They acknowledge that big donors and activist networks can coordinate to advance policy goals, sometimes at the expense of on-the-ground, local accountability. - Tech, media, and corporate power: The dialogue covers the Silicon Valley environment, James Damore’s case at Google, and the broader issue of woke corporate culture. Dhillon highlights the disproportionate power of HR in big tech and how employee activism around identity politics can influence careers and policy. Shanahan notes that Google’s founders are no longer central decision-makers, and argues for antitrust and shareholder-rights actions to challenge what they see as woke monopolies that do not serve shareholders or society. - The path forward: Both speakers advocate for courage to cross party lines, work for principled governance, and engage in issue-focused collaboration. They emphasize the need to reform infrastructure—electoral, health, educational, and economic—through competency, transparency, and bipartisan cooperation, rather than through dogmatic, identity-driven politics. They close with a mutual commitment to continuing the conversation, finding common ground where possible, and preserving the core American ideal that individuals should be free to define themselves and contribute to the country’s future.

A person searched Facebook for information about a "no kings protest" coming to Wisconsin. The search results displayed ten profiles that appeared to be advocating for the protest. The person noticed a pattern among these ten profiles.

The Georgia nerds, a group of data analysts, expose election fraud in Georgia by analyzing voter rolls and election files. They uncover crimes like duplicate IDs leading to double voting and machine errors inserting fake votes. They call for Governor Kemp to address the fraud and demand the resignation of Secretary of State Raffensperger. The group urges for a criminal investigation into the election crimes and emphasizes the urgent need to protect the integrity of Georgia's elections. Follow them on Twitter for evidence of the fraud.

Recently, we discovered new information indicating that certain individuals who took part in the recent runoff election also engaged in similar behavior during the general election. Upon further investigation, we found evidence suggesting that this pattern of behavior dates back to 2018, and it is possible that it occurred in previous elections as well, such as in 2012 and 2008.

In Gwinnett County, there was a ballot drop box with a chain of custody document noting 1,962 ballots. This is unusual as we usually see around 10 times fewer. After analyzing the GEO data, we found that only 271 people approached the drop box during a 25-hour period. This raises questions about how 1,962 ballots were deposited. Video evidence shows election officials removing two full duffle bags containing the ballots from the drop box.

We've been trying to elect good candidates in local elections but keep losing by narrow margins. After a recent election, we suspected cheating, especially after hearing claims about fraud in Detroit. While checking the voting list for a recall, I found friends who had been registered to vote without their knowledge, despite never voting. This pattern continued when I looked into my own voting history after moving to Ohio, where I was also registered back in Detroit without consent. I discovered many others in similar situations, including someone who had never voted but was used in multiple elections. We obtained a massive list of voters from the clerk's office to investigate further.

Data indicates that at Kamala Harris's rally in Charlotte, North Carolina, there were 5,003 mobile devices, with over 3,600 appearing to be from Georgia, mainly Atlanta, and approximately 720 from Savannah. This suggests that roughly 80% of attendees were from Georgia, leaving only about 600 local attendees from North Carolina. The speaker questions the authenticity of Kamala Harris's support, noting the presence of organized buses at her events, unlike Trump events where people arrive independently. It is claimed that many attendees are repeat participants from multiple rallies, with 90% having attended 3+ rallies and 54% even being at Arizona and Nevada rallies. The speaker concludes that Kamala's support is largely contrived and not genuine, estimating it to be "90% fake."

During the examination, it was discovered that there were 61 groups of 200 ballots that had over 90% support for one candidate. This is unusual in a close race unless it is due to a specific geographical area. However, these groups were not specific to any particular area as they came from the central collection center for mail-in and early voting ballots. What's even more surprising is that there were 58 groups for one candidate and 3 for another that had 90% support. This suggests that someone may have sorted the ballots beforehand. The distribution of such high percentages for one candidate is not expected, and the ratio of 58 to 3 is particularly strange.

They wanted to discourage investors and organizations from helping with voter registration and Get Out the Vote efforts in Florida. Their goal was to make them believe that Florida was a lost cause and they should focus on other states. Unfortunately, they have almost succeeded in this plan. It is concerning that we are just now realizing what was happening.

The top financial supporter of Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign was Alphabet, the parent company of Google. According to the witness, through deceptive search methods, they potentially influenced 2.6 million votes in her favor. This raises concerns about the power of a few Silicon Valley billionaires to manipulate election outcomes without detection. The witness clarifies that the 2.6 million figure is a minimum, and the actual range could be higher depending on the aggressiveness of the techniques used. These techniques include search engine manipulation and search suggestion effects, which give Google exclusive control over influencing public opinion.

FEC data reveals that some senior citizens across the US are listed as donating thousands of times per year, with some allegedly linked to over $200,000 in contributions. I'm James O'Keefe with OMG in Annapolis, Maryland, investigating these claims. I went to people's houses to ask them about these donations. I spoke with one man who told me to ask Donald Trump. I spoke to Cindy Noe, whose records indicate she donated over a thousand times to ActBlue in one year, totaling almost $19,000. She said she only donates $5 occasionally. Another individual was listed as making 18,000 contributions totaling $170,000, which they denied. I called Garland Riggs, who was listed as making over 31,000 contributions. He denied this. I encourage you to knock on doors and ask your neighbors if they've donated to ActBlue or Biden for President and if they know how many donations were made in their name.

I called Garland Riggs, an 80-year-old with 31,073 donations made under his address. He denies donating to ActBlue. Riggs suspects someone is using his information. He agrees to look into it.

Speaker 0: I want to ask about what if you've changed position on what happened in the twenty twenty election. Speaker 1: Oh, I think it was rigged. Speaker 0: You think it was rigged? Speaker 1: Yeah. I know more now than I did then. What you'd have to do is in February 2021, was a Time Magazine article that was published, it was about Mark Zuckerberg investing $500,000,000 in a get out the Democrat vote campaign. And they focused on the swing states, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona. And they focused in what they did is they basically did what I would refer to as agency capture. And they went in and they captured the, the county clerks and the secretaries of states in these states. They basically said, we have a get out the vote campaign program, and if you will implement it exactly the way that we say that you must implement it, we will give you massive amounts of money to run your elections. But if you do not run it the way that we say, then we can claw all that money back. Well, think about it. If you're a small county in Wisconsin and you get $300,000 from Mark Zuckerberg's foundation to make sure that there are drop boxes in your, in your Democrat heavy areas, that there are, that you've got a, an RV going around and hauling people into the, into the polling places to vote. When you do that, if, if you do not carry out, you take that money, you sign that contract and you do not do exactly what that foundation said, you were gonna have to use public money to pay it back. You most likely would have ended up in prison. I mean, that's just one example of the way that the election was rigged. The Mark Zuckerberg money was huge. $500,000,000 concentrated in Democrat counties for the purpose of getting out the Democrat vote. Speaker 0: How do you know it was to get the Democrat vote out? Because how does exactly do what are the mechanics of that? Of how it was You Speaker 1: I have to read the article. And what the article does is it lays it out, and the title is something along the lines of how a secret group of people were able to save the twenty twenty election, meaning how were they able to get Joe Biden elected.

We work for a company registering Hispanic voters. Visited a Georgia complex, found 14% noncitizens registered to vote. Georgia has 339,000 noncitizens, potentially 47,000 registered. Biden won by 12,000 votes. 2024 election at risk.

I estimated that around 80-90% of the ballots I observed were for Joe Biden, which seemed statistically impossible. In traditionally conservative neighborhoods like Cobb County, Georgia, we don't typically see a 100% Biden vote, yet the military ballots in those areas were between 80-90% Biden. Fulton County reported 93% of military ballots for Biden, which also seemed statistically impossible.

Engineers discovered that thousands of non-citizens registered to vote in multiple states, and many voted. This was discovered after mapping benefit programs accessed by 1.3 million people, finding many on Medicaid. The data revealed individuals on various benefit programs like unemployment and Medicaid who are "taking out" and "mooching." Data sent to the National Targeting Center found "hard hits" identifying criminals and individuals on terrorist watch lists within this group. While some may be contributing to the system, the complexity requires sorting the data to determine how to address the issue.

We were covering an article about 55,000 Democrat NGOs discovered to be contributing to campaigns, moving things around, and pushing propaganda. It was discovered through AI that to figure out where the money's coming from, you have to go through layers and layers, and it's all funneling down to one group or another. It's a giant propaganda machine, a giant regime change machine.

FEC data indicates that numerous senior citizens in the US are donating thousands of times annually, with some names and addresses linked to over $200,000 in contributions. We visited some of these individuals to verify the data, suspecting a potential money laundering operation. For example, Cindy Noe of Annapolis, Maryland, purportedly donated to ActBlue over 1,000 times in 02/2022, totaling $18,849.77, which equates to approximately three donations daily. When approached, Cindy acknowledged donating to ActBlue occasionally, but denied donating $18,850 or the possibility of her address being used for such purposes.