TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

When I started recording ballot numbers and names from mail-in ballots, I noticed they were in sequence, which is unusual. The envelopes had no date, just "November 0-2020." When I questioned this, I was told not to interfere. The ballots were all from the same street in Detroit, with similar signatures and no date stamp. They weren't in the system and were being entered manually. It seemed suspicious.

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 74,243 mail-in ballots in Arizona with no clear record of being sent. In Arizona, EB32 forms track when mail-in ballots are sent, while EB33 forms track when they are received. Ideally, there should be more EB32s than EB33s, indicating that more ballots are sent out than returned. The issue arises with these 74,000 ballots, as we cannot confirm they were ever sent to the individuals listed.

I found that there were approximately 25,000 ballots in Maricopa County that were not printed from the official Dominion PDF ballot. These ballots had imperfections in the lines and circles, unlike the perfect PDF printing. The imperfections were consistent across all the ballots, suggesting they were not genuine. These 25,000 questionable ballots alone exceed Joe Biden's margin of victory by over double.

A poll worker noticed that absentee ballot numbers were in sequence, which should not occur with mailed ballots. The worker noticed ballot numbers like 2232 next to 2233. The worker asked a supervisor about the envelopes lacking a specific date, showing only "November 0-2020," but was rebuked. The poll worker stated the sequential ballot numbers were all from the same area, Guarded Street in downtown Detroit, and the signatures looked alike. The envelopes had no date stamp and were missing the day of the month. The ballots were not in the system and were being entered manually, even though the details were not in the poll book.

We've identified 74,243 mail-in ballots lacking a clear record of being sent. In Arizona, EV32 forms track ballots sent, and EV33 forms track those received. Ideally, the number of EV32s should exceed EV33s. These ballots are tied to specific individuals, so it's concerning that we have 74,000 returned ballots without corresponding EV32 records. This discrepancy, revealed through FOIA data from the county's EV32 and EV33 forms, suggests potential documentation errors or clerical issues. While some variance between sent and returned ballots is expected, these specific ballots lack matching records. The EV32 and EV33 forms should match up with each other, and the large number merits further investigation, like door-to-door validation.

Every election should be as accurate as a bank account, with no room for error. It's puzzling why we accept a 1% error rate in elections, especially when the margin of victory was only 0.506%. We can track the handling of every ballot and the exact time it entered the system. There are concerns about the selection of hand-audited ballots, as the majority of them favored Biden. Out of 1675 boxes, only 52 were properly sealed and protected. Some batches of ballots lack processing dates and their origin is unclear. Interestingly, these batches match the ones chosen for hand auditing. Despite claims of a backlog, half of the extra counting days had no ballots counted, and the counted batches were smaller than usual. It's also questionable how the election was called and certified with incomplete processes. A full forensic audit would provide answers.

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.

We found around 25,000 ballots in Maricopa County that were not created from the usual PDF used for elections. The ballots are tailored to different neighborhoods and come in English and Spanish versions. These ballots are pre-made for mail-in voting and early voting locations. However, we discovered that the quality of these pre-made ballots was significantly lower than expected, indicating a potential issue with the printing process.

Disturbing breaches of protocol were observed during the election. USB vCard drives from voting machines were mixed together with cartridges and paper tapes, destroying any chance of forensic auditability and compromising the chain of custody. Despite objections, an individual plugged unsecured USB cards into vote counting computers, resulting in a sudden increase of 50,000 votes for Vice President Biden. Initially, 47 USB cards were missing, but that number has reportedly grown to 64. Additionally, a room containing 60,000 to 70,000 unopened mail-in ballots was discovered days after the vote count, with no knowledge of their origin or whereabouts. The absence of signed chain of custody documents raises questions about the source and destination of these ballots.

There are 74,243 mail-in ballots in Arizona without a clear record of being sent. In Arizona, there are supposed to be records (EB32s and EB33s) of when a mail-in ballot is sent and received. The number of EB32s should be higher than the number of EB33s. However, in this case, there are more ballots received than there are records of being sent. These ballots can be linked to specific individuals, but it is unclear if they were actually sent to them.

Approximately 25,000 ballots were not created from the PDF. The PDF files used for preprinted and vote center ballots are similar, with minor differences in wording. The same configuration and layout are used, but some areas may have extra words. The speaker used an acetate overlay to mark breaks in the circle lines on the computer screen, which were consistent across multiple ballots. This indicates that the anomalies were not due to poor printing but rather degradation of the image over time. The anomalies included breaks in lines, unusual formations of characters, and jagged vertical and horizontal lines. These anomalies were found in many ballots, suggesting a consistent printing issue. The degraded print quality was observed in early ballots as well.

We found 74,243 mail-in ballots in Arizona with no record of being sent. In Arizona, EB32s track when ballots are sent, and EB33s track when they are received. There should be more EB32s than EB33s. These ballots were tied to specific individuals, but we lack proof they were sent to them.

In Arizona, there are 74,243 mail-in ballots with no clear record of being sent. The state uses EB32 forms to track when ballots are sent and EB33 forms for when they are received. Ideally, there should be more EB32s than EB33s, indicating that more ballots are sent out than returned. These ballots can be linked to specific individuals, but in this case, there is no confirmation that these 74,000 ballots were ever sent to them.

A scanner can only scan one dollar per second, but there are 4,000 ballots with the exact same time stamp of November 5th at 11:19:40. This suggests that these ballots may have been inserted and cannot be authenticated. The main question is whether this time stamp, which shows an unbelievable speed of scanning, is from the EMS system and not something we created.

In Downtown Detroit at the TCF Center, a video discussion describes what a caller says happened during ballot processing. The account asserts that after precincts had counted ballots and were ready to close, three vehicles—a van, a Chrysler 300, and a Ferrari—arrived at about 4:00 a.m. with a claimed 130,000 ballots. The claim is that every one of these ballots were Biden ballots that had not been delivered to the precinct before its cutoff, constituting a “big irregularity” and suggesting voter fraud. The speakers say this is being contested by the president in a lawsuit for Michigan, with people who allegedly witnessed the event. Speaker 1 adds that back rooms at the facility enabled cars to drive in through a garage door, and that ballots appeared between 10:30 p.m. and 3:30 a.m. Approximately 38,000 ballots were said to have arrived in that window, with a reported count of 61 ballots described as being in USPS boxes. The boxes were not necessarily USPS-delivered; a white van with the city clerk’s emblem appeared to be delivering them, bearing the name Janice Winfrey and related tagline. The implication is that ballots arrived in an unverified, potentially improper manner. Speaker 2 notes possible additional vehicles present at the time and mentions that a mini panel truck with Detroit Elections Bureau regalia and a vehicle ID number was observed, with other people recording license plate information. The lack of verifiable chain of custody is emphasized: there was no confirmed Republican/Democrat presence during transfer, and seals on ballots were not verified. The speaker contrasts this with a suburbs experience where ballots were methodically processed, sealed, and tracked, implying Detroit’s process lacked similar controls. Speaker 3 explains that Gateway Pundit obtained video of the event after a delay, and that local media personnel claimed the event did not occur. The video shows an escort car and a lead car delivering items inside the facility, with the escort car reportedly from Pennsylvania and possibly a rental. The Michigan group, Patty’s group, counted drop-box ballots and reported about 1,340 to 1,400 ballots dropped in Detroit over the last two days. In contrast, after the shutdown, officials allegedly claimed 16,000 ballots were dropped in, with the question of where those additional ballots originated. Speaker 4 reinforces the Michigan group’s tally of roughly 1,340–1,400 ballots from drop boxes in Detroit in the adjacent period and points to the discrepancy between that count and the 16,000 ballots later cited, noting the eight-hour gap after the official closing time and the two separate deliveries to the TCF Center. The overarching claim is that these events indicate irregularities in ballot handling and raise questions about the source and legitimacy of the large ballot influx.

Speaker 0 presents a sequence of figures regarding Maricopa County’s 2020 election and asserts inconsistency between tallies and ballots. He begins: there were 2,595,272 registered voters; 2,089,512 voted at the close of business through election night and all counting; yet there were only 1,923,693 ballots existing. He notes, “They called the election at 2,089,512 votes,” but emphasizes that the closing canvas shows a different number, counting the actual codes on paper rather than pieces of paper, yielding 1,923,693 numbers that show up. After post-adjudication, he lists key observations. By the time voting closed, 165,819 ballots were missing, which he states is 7.94% of the votes in 2020, and they could not explain where they were. However, about a month later in Arizona, a new total was produced: 2,086,959, still leaving 2,553 ballots missing as of that adjustment. He notes that Biden was said to have won by 10,500 votes. He then describes a process he calls the “time hack,” alleged to have been used to gain extra counting time—a practice he claims is new to 2020 and has continued in subsequent elections. He asserts that they “picked up, i.e., manufactured 163,266 ballots that never existed.” He questions how ballots could enter the system after the fact if they did not exist beforehand, asserting this as evidence of manipulation. To support the claim, he cites machine outputs: “Maricopa printed 04/7968 ballots for Maricopa,” while there were only 2,595,272 registered voters, yet 4,027,968 ballots printed. He states these numbers come directly from the machines and argues that no one scrutinizes them deeply enough. He asks why Maricopa would print 1,432,696 overprints, suggesting that to fabricate missing numbers, “backwards ballots” are needed to fill those gaps during the time hack. The argument continues that ballots must be suspended from hitting the bottom line—“don’t let them hit the bottom line”—and, once the numbers are known, could be replaced with whatever is needed. He implies that such suspended ballots are not present in either the pre- or post-audit tallies. Finally, he asserts that a proper audit would have all numbers cross-referencing across every manifestation; otherwise, the cross-referencing would reveal the inconsistencies. The overall gist is a claim of missing ballots, late adjustments, a large number of overprints, and a so-called time hack used to manipulate counts, with an emphasis on the need for cross-referenced auditing.

The speaker noticed irregularities with the ballot numbers and names on absentee and mailing ballots. The numbers were almost consecutive, and some envelopes lacked a date. When the speaker questioned this, they were met with resistance. The ballot numbers were all from the same area, with similar signatures and no date stamp. None of these details were entered into the system, and they were being manually entered. The speaker suspected something was amiss but didn't challenge further to avoid being kicked out.

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

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.

In Arizona, there are 74,243 mail-in ballots without a clear record of being sent. The state uses EB32s to track when a ballot is sent and EB33s to track when it is received. The number of EB32s should be higher than the number of EB33s. These 74,000 ballots can be linked to specific individuals, but there is no evidence that they were actually sent to them.

The speaker noticed a batch of absentee ballots that stood out because they were in pristine condition, unlike the others which were worn. These ballots had no folds and felt different. One ballot had a white eclipse in the bubble where it should have been filled. As they sorted the ballots, they realized that a significant number of them were exactly the same, with no folds. One ballot in the stack was also misaligned. Additionally, instead of the usual 100, this batch had 110 ballots, which was unusual.

Disturbing breaches of protocol were observed during the election. USB card drives from voting machines were mishandled, destroying any possibility of a forensic audit and corrupting the chain of custody. Despite objections, the voting machine warehouse supervisor plugged unsecured USB cards into vote counting computers, resulting in a sudden increase of 50,000 votes for Vice President Biden. Initially, 47 USB cards were missing, but that number has now reportedly grown to 64. Additionally, 60,000 to 70,000 unopened mail-in ballots were discovered in back offices, with no knowledge of their origin or whereabouts. All signed paper chain of custody documents are missing, and attempts to recreate them have been made by Democrat election officials. The questions of where the ballots came from and where they went remain unanswered.

In Arizona, there are 74,243 mail-in ballots with no clear record of being sent. The state uses EB32s to track when a mail-in ballot is sent and EB33s to track when it is received. Ideally, there should be more EB32s than EB33s, indicating that more ballots are sent out than returned. These ballots can be linked to specific individuals, but in this case, there is no clear indication that these 74,000 ballots were ever sent.

We found 74,243 mail-in ballots in Arizona with no clear record of being sent. In Arizona, EB32s show when a ballot is sent, and EB33s show when it's received. There should be more EB32s than EB33s. These ballots can be linked to specific individuals, but 74,000 came back without proof of being sent to them.