TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

In this video, the speaker shows two different batches of votes with identical markings. They point out a little tail and the word "Republican" written on both. They mention that there are a total of 62 images in the batch, but they didn't go through all of them. The speaker doesn't remember the exact numbers, but they mention that the batches were fairly close. They highlight one image with a little bubble and mention that it matches another image with the same batch number. The conclusion is that there are duplicate ballots in the entire batch that were scanned multiple times.

The speaker discusses real-time election data from SIDL in multiple states, highlighting oscillations and deletions in vote counts. They question the accuracy of projections and media calls, emphasizing the need for transparency and accountability in the election process. The speaker also mentions legal challenges and concerns about the media influencing election outcomes.

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.

The speaker discusses the issue of inspecting ballots for signatures. They mention that the Voter Privacy Act prohibits inspectors from looking through a ballot to verify a signature. They also point out that many ballots have two different patterns of the letter "s" written for the signature, even though some of them don't even have an "s" in the voter's name. They state that out of the 104,820 ballots reviewed, 20,232 had mismatched signatures, which accounts for 20% of the total.

The speaker discusses tally sheets from the Georgia audit, noting that many of them show fraudulent numbers. They mention that the sheets are signed by the person who filled them out, but the information is redacted. They then shift focus to the ballot images obtained through a lawsuit, pointing out that there are over 4,000 duplicate images. They mention a spreadsheet with 40,000 line items comparing original election numbers to the recount, which has an error rate of 59.5%. The transcript ends abruptly.

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.

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.

Votes in Georgia were counted three times using paper and machines. Concerns were raised about the lack of transparency and oversight in the vote review process, especially during adjudication. The speakers emphasized the importance of open-source voting programs to ensure transparency and prevent manipulation. They highlighted the need for concrete evidence and clear processes to build trust in the election system. Open-source systems were seen as a way to increase transparency and accountability in elections.

The speaker asks who determined the number of failed signatures in the 2020 election. Speaker 1 explains that their organization reviewed a quarter of the 1,900,000 envelopes from the election using 150 trained workers. They followed the guidelines in the secretary of state manual and analyzed each voter record individually. The statistics from the first 25% of the ballots were extrapolated to determine the final number, which is specific to Maricopa County. Speaker 0 acknowledges that Maricopa County alone had over 2 million ballots, with about 1.9 million of them being mail-in ballots. Speaker 1 confirms this and the conversation continues.

Our current voting systems are complicated and messy. Votes are not reconciled and verified at the precinct level in many states. Instead, they are sent to third party entities or counted at centralized locations without public oversight. Mail-in ballots are not secure and can lead to fraud. We need to return to hand counting at the precinct level to ensure accurate accounting and transparency. This system worked for years before 2000 and is still used in France because it is secure. Our current system invites fraud and distrust, so we must act now to restore faith in our elections. Demand hand counting at the precinct level to stop fraud and build back trust in our elections.

The speaker claims to have personally witnessed a man inserting USB drives into voting machines on over 24 occasions, which they reported to a deputy sheriff and the clerk of elections. They were told that leaving USBs in voting machines is normal, but later learned this was not the case. The speaker alleges that 47 USB cards are now missing. They demanded that vote counts be updated live, and when they were, the count showed 50,000 votes, which they claim were for Vice President Biden. The speaker says they asked multiple law enforcement agencies to examine the computers for forensic evidence, but this was not done. The speaker further claims that chain of custody logs, records, and yellow sheets are gone, and that poll workers were invited to recreate the logs. They state there are 100,000 to 120,000 ballots in question and that there is no remedy for this regarding the presidential election. They do not believe anyone could certify the vote in good conscience.

We now know how elections are rigged, with Maricopa County mailing more ballots than voters. This shows extra ballots were printed to manipulate the election. States are avoiding scrutiny of ballots, and censorship of truth reveals we are on the right track.

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.

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

The discussion centers on completing an audit of ballots to obtain a count and address concerns about the precinct. The participants emphasize that without counts, they cannot move forward. They insist that the audit piece must be completed first, not an investigation, so that a number of ballots can be established and the overall tally can proceed. Key points raised: - The need to finish the audit to determine how many ballots are in the ballot can, and to move forward with the numbers. “We need to move forward with the audit so we can get the numbers, so we can see how many ballots are here.” - A concern has been raised about the precinct, including the issue of multiple ballots with the very same signature. The team discusses handling this by counting the ballots and later addressing the concern, rather than delaying the process. “we will separate out and count those and add those in. We're there going to be an asterisk saying these ballots have the same.” - There is tension between continuing the presidential race audit and addressing potential irregularities. The instruction given is to complete the audit portion first and then review any issues. “the process right now is for you to put them in the piles where they belong and for the presidential vote and count the presidential votes… finish the presidential race audit, not separate them out, and then we'll move forward from there.” - The officials acknowledge the underlying concern about the precinct and previous issues with county ballots, but reiterate that, at this moment, the priority is to obtain a count and finish the audit. “We understand that there may be possibly an issue with this precinct. We understand that. But what I need for you to do right now is to finish the audit process.” - They clarify that the current activity is not an investigation, and that the aim is to produce a number for how many ballots were in the can when counting began, enabling progress based on the audit results. “This is not an investigation right now… not an investigation, not counting… what I need you to do is complete the audit so we can get a number.” In sum, the participants are focused on completing the ballot-count audit to establish a definitive tally, while acknowledging concerns about signatures and precinct irregularities, and planning to address those concerns after the audit yields a numeric result for the presidential ballots. The priority repeatedly stated is to finish the audit to obtain a count, then proceed with any further review.

The investigation confirms 380,761 missing ballot images from election day. Fulton County was subpoenaed for recount images, not election day ones. It's unclear why the election day images are missing. Fulton County should ensure every vote has a corresponding ballot image. Translation: The investigation found 380,761 missing ballot images from election day. Fulton County was asked for recount images, not those from election day. The reason for the missing images is unknown. Fulton County should ensure that every vote has a corresponding ballot image.

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.

Forensic copy bit for bit of everything that was on the Mesa County computer. Just to clarify, there were two forensic images taken of the Mesa County Election server. One, before the software update. Another image taken after. Everything that had been on that drive before this update was gone. Looks like a cover up. Low risk of being caught. Low consequence if they are caught. The reason we know it was deliberate is because of Tina Peters. Are those files important to elections? Critical. The federal voting system standards are very clear that the election records that are required to audit a voting system include the digital records that are all the log files generated by that voting system, especially when it's a complex computer system.

The speaker states that the best investigators are pursuing election integrity. They claim there is evidence that electronic voting systems have been vulnerable to hackers for a long time and can be exploited to manipulate vote results. This vulnerability allegedly drives the mandate to implement paper ballots across the country, so voters can have faith in election integrity.

The speaker asks who determined the number of failed signatures in the 2020 election. Speaker 1 explains that their organization reviewed 25% of the 1,900,000 envelopes from the election and analyzed each voter record individually. They extrapolated the statistics from the first 25% to determine the final number, which is specific to Maricopa County. Speaker 0 points out that Maricopa County alone had over 2 million ballots, and their group analyzed 25% of the mail-in ballots to arrive at the 420,987 failed signature verification number. Speaker 1 confirms this.

- 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.

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.

I'm calling out the recent news story as a setup for a time hack. In Maricopa County during the 2020 election, they had 10 tally machines counting over 140,000 ballots daily. Yet, on election day, they claimed they needed 10 extra days to count, processing only 89,000 ballots the day after and then dropping to just a few thousand. A month later, they counted 140,000 ballots again. This indicates they are creating excuses and using various hacks to interfere with the election. It's crucial to maintain chain of custody for forensic audits, which is costly but necessary to prevent disqualification of evidence. We learned from 2020, and it's vital to preserve this information for future legal actions. Barcodes are scanned using a laser that checks columns for light reflection, translating them into binary code for computers.

The speaker highlights that the number of misfeeds in the voting system is much higher than the federal standard of one out of 500. They mention that the insertion errors were a significant issue throughout Election Day, contrary to reports claiming it was a minor problem. The system log files reveal that there were consistently over 7,000 ballot insertion failures every 30 minutes from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m., with some intervals exceeding 8,000 errors. The problem persisted throughout the day despite technicians attempting to fix it.

The speaker states that the "best of the best" are investigating election integrity. They claim there is evidence that electronic voting systems have been vulnerable to hackers and exploitation, allowing for the manipulation of vote results. This allegedly supports the mandate to implement paper ballots nationwide, with the goal of restoring voters' faith in election integrity.