reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
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.