TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The speakers discussed issues with scanning envelopes due to jamming in the printer. They mentioned problems with the BlueCrest machine for signature verification. The request for scanned images of outer envelopes from November 2020 was not fulfilled. The discussion then shifted to obtaining signature exemplars and reference images for voters, which would require checking multiple databases for 860,000 voters. The process of finding signatures in the databases was explained in detail. The conversation also touched on absentee ballot application forms.

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 transcript discusses several election-related issues in California. First, it highlights a controversy with the voting envelopes: in some counties, how a ballot is inserted into the envelope can reveal the voter's choice. Specifically, if a voter selects no, the hole aligns with the “no” vote, making the vote visible through a window in the envelope. The speakers suggest this could be used to see how someone voted, and question whether it could affect the outcome if a small percentage of ballots are read differently. Speaker 1 notes that voters wonder whether, after submission, someone might handle the ballot on the processing side, calling it a legitimate question to ask. Speaker 0 explains that the state says it does not know how many ballots are affected because counties print the envelopes, and acknowledges that Shasta, Tulare, and Sacramento have already admitted the mistake and told voters how to fix it. Speaker 2 proposes a solution: fold the envelope in the opposite direction to create a blank page so nothing on the ballot envelope is visible. The state GOP has released a video showing voters how to avoid the problem. The conversation then broadens to mention additional election issues. It is stated that the state spent nearly $300,000,000 mailing out the wrong redistricting map, which required a corrected mailer to be sent. There is also a warning that even ballots mailed on election day may not be counted due to slow mail service. Regarding the holes in the envelope, the explanation given is that the holes exist so blind voters can know where to sign the envelope by touching two areas and signing there, though the speakers question how blind voters would know which exact box to fill in on the document. The overall discussion centers on concerns about transparency and reliability in the voting process, including envelope design, the handling of ballots after submission, and the impact of mailing errors on the election.

The speaker discusses a violation regarding blank envelopes in the election. They state that according to the statute, blank envelopes cannot be cured and must have a signature by 7 pm on election day. However, they found 1,870 cured ballots without signatures. One example is a blank envelope without a signature or phone number, which was cured and verified after the statutory expiration. Another ballot was received on election day. When questioned, the speaker confirms that the metadata shows the envelopes were cured on November 8th, five days after the election. Another speaker points out that the statute allows for five working days, excluding weekends and holidays. They argue that the election was on Tuesday, so only three days should be counted.

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.

The speaker mentions the history of elections in Fulton County, Georgia. Another speaker brings up an interesting incident during a 99% audit on signatures. They found that many ballots did not have the required red initials, indicating approval. Once separated from the outer envelope, these ballots still had to be counted. This poses a problem as it undermines the accuracy of the audit. The speaker expresses concern about the lack of proper examination for dozens of ballots on Saturday. The conversation concludes with a thank you to Miss Fisher.

The speaker discusses a report and rates its significance on a scale of 1 to 10. They mention that the final report reveals that 23,344 mail-in ballots were sent to addresses where the individuals no longer lived, yet votes were still cast on them. These ballots were identified through a national change of address form, which people fill out when they move. The speaker finds this illogical and believes the attorney general should provide an explanation. They emphasize that the election was decided by a margin of 10,000 votes, while the issue of the 23,344 ballots is just one example of irregularities.

On November 8th, it was discovered that blank envelopes were being subjected to a curing period, which goes against the stated policy. The speaker clarifies that if a signature box on an envelope is unsigned by 7 p.m. on election night, it cannot be cured. The speaker also mentions that in cases where there is no phone number provided, the county would typically refer to the voter registration record to contact the voter, but some registrations lack phone numbers. The transcript ends with another example of a ballot being cured without a signature, which violates the statute.

Signature verification is a process used to determine the legitimacy of a vote by comparing the voter's ballot envelope to the affidavit. In the 2020 election, 420,987 ballot envelopes failed signature verification, and the system was never fixed. As a result, the same issues persisted in the 2022 election, leaving the system vulnerable.

Out of the 1.9 million ballot envelopes, around 10% were mismatched according to one calculation, while another calculation showed a 12.7% mismatch. This means there were more than 236,763 mismatched signatures on ballot envelopes and over 163,458 mismatches on early votes. Taking the smallest number, 127,186, which is more than 7 times the margin of victory in the governor's race, it is projected that there were more than 7 times the margin of victory in mismatched signatures in 2022. Besides signature mismatches, there were other failures in Maricopa County in 2020. This is summarized from Ms. Bush's presentation and Dr. Daugherty's declaration.

In this video, the speaker refers to declarations from signature verification workers in 2022. One worker named Andrew mentions that the numbers on the whiteboard for the ballots to be verified didn't add up. They were processing around 60,000 signatures a day, but only receiving about 1,000 envelopes for review the next day, instead of the expected 12,000 to 15,000. The rejection rates were consistent at 20% to 30%, but the math didn't seem to match the actual numbers.

In the video, the speaker describes their observations during a ballot verification process. They noticed a yellow banner indicating "low confidence" on some ballots, but the signatures being compared were illegible and didn't match. The speaker asked about it, but was told not to worry as it was a new program being tested. Later, there was a server outage, but the lights were still on. When the computers came back up, a person who previously had a yellow banner now had a green one indicating "high confidence." The speaker observed conversations among the screeners and heard one person say they were now working on high confidence instead of low confidence.

Maricopa County has been resistant to discussing signature verification during the Arizona audit because the signatures don't match.

The speaker questions Miss Hobbs about the alleged intentional failures during the election that caused disenfranchisement of Republican voters. They mention ongoing lawsuits and express concern about her decision-making on Arizona's water future. Another person brings up the issue of signature verification in the 2022 election, where employees were allegedly clicking through signatures too quickly. Miss Hobbs states that she doesn't have a comment on it as it's not under her jurisdiction. The speaker insists that she should answer election questions since a majority of Arizonans believe the election was unfair. Miss Hobbs is reminded that she is not a reporter.

Mismatch signatures in Maricopa County have led to approximately 27,000 ballots being sent for curing, with 15,000 cured so far. Concerns about the vulnerability of electronic voting machines have been raised by numerous Democrats before the 2020 election, highlighting issues like easy hacking and outdated systems. Reports from voters indicate problems, such as being told they had already voted when they hadn’t. There are fears of election fraud, with claims that the integrity of the election process is at risk. Amid these concerns, there is a push for better election security and awareness of potential manipulation. Support for Trump is anticipated, but vigilance against fraud is emphasized. Additionally, there are promotions for health products aimed at boosting immunity and overall well-being.

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.

Approximately 1,400,000 ballot packets have been sent out, with around 27,000 currently undergoing the curing process. Curing involves contacting voters when their signatures do not match. So far, about 15,000 of these have been successfully cured. There is a deadline of five calendar days after election day to cure as many ballots as possible.

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.

Key points from the testimonies: - There is a contention that ballots were run through the counting process multiple times, possibly thousands, with Speaker 0 noting statements that ballots could have been counted up to 30,000 times. When examining the poll book and comparing it to the votes cast, it is asked whether the numbers would align with the total votes from Detroit. - Speaker 2 asserts that the poll book is "completely off," with Speaker 3 estimating an error of over 100,000 in the poll book. A Downriver resident explains arriving at 3:40 a.m. due to 38,000 ballots that were “ride here” and “sitting over there and getting counted,” framing this as an eye-opening revelation about hypocrisy. - Security measures are described as unusual: Speaker 3 notes that windows are being taped up so challengers cannot see in, or out, raising questions about transparency. - Speaker 4 describes observing that none of the names on ballots were being scanned from the ballots into electronic poll books; instead, names appeared only on supplemental sheets. They note electronic poll books were updated on Sunday, November 1, implying that thousands of new ballots would have had to be registered on November 2 or 3. The speaker began writing down names after ballots were scanned but was obstructed by five individuals, including a poll worker, a supervisor, an uncredentialed person, a Democrat challenger, and a top ABCB leader, according to their affidavit. The speaker questions whether 30,000 to 40,000 new voters could have been legally signed up in two days. - Speaker 5 reports ballots that do not belong to anybody and do not appear in voter registration. They describe ballots with no names attached and note attempts to reevaluate them by placing them in a box. Multiple ballots show several different numbers. - Speaker 6 explains that, on the tables, ballots are accompanied by a computer screen showing which ballot it is. Sometimes a ballot has no name, but the registration file shows a person born in 1921 registered long before that year (1900), suggesting anomalies. The speaker asks what is wrong with being born in 1921, while Speaker 5 emphasizes a registration dating to 1900. - Speaker 7 lists egregious items: not allowed to perform duties, GOP challengers obstructed, procedures not followed, backdating ballots from November 4 to November 2, and data entered into computers for mail-in ballots with dates of birth like 01/01/1900, absent from electronic poll books or paper supplement books prior to that. They claim dead people were voting and reference a list of 17,327 Michigan voters over 80 who voted in 2020 and were found in obituaries online. This speaker calls the election described as the most important in their lifetime and in the republic’s history. - Representative Johnson is also mentioned, with a prompt to question the turnout rate, hinting at a purported turnout of 120%. Overall, the testimonies allege discrepancies between poll books and ballots, improper registration, backdated or misdated ballots, ballots lacking identifying information, obstructions to challengers, and possible participation of non-existent or deceased voters, culminating in claims of a highly irregular election process.

The speaker asks if the person is aware that the outer envelope of a ballot must have the date, time, and signature of the town clerk. The person admits they were not aware. The speaker then asks if the person instructed their absentee ballot moderator about this rule, to which the person responds that they went over the manual but did not specifically mention the signature requirement. The speaker shows an example of an envelope without a signature and asks if it should have been counted. The person objects, but the speaker clarifies that they were in charge of counting the ballots. The person admits they did not discuss the signature requirement with the moderator. The speaker asks if the person's office ever checked for the clerk's signature on the envelopes, to which the person says it never came up in their training.

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 speaker describes observing absentee/mail-in ballots and recording details from the ballots. They wrote down the ballot numbers and the last names of the person named on each ballot. The ballots appeared to be in sequence, which, according to the speaker, should not happen with mail-in ballots, since mail-in ballots come in at different times and numbers. The speaker recalls that when they noticed the numbers were almost next to each other—one in the middle, then another—they became suspicious. The speaker asked the supervisor about this, noting there was not even a date on the envelopes. The envelopes were marked November 2020, but there was no second number or other identifying date visible. When the speaker inquired about the date on a specific envelope, the response was hostile: the supervisors became angry and told them they were not letting them do their job and that the speaker was disturbing them. To avoid being kicked out, the speaker and the others in the room chose not to challenge the process further, since they did not want to be removed and there were only a few people present. The speaker also observed that the sequence of ballot numbers all originated from the same area—Guarded Street in Downtown Detroit. The ballots’ signatures looked alike, and none of the envelopes had dates stamped on them. The envelopes appeared to be missing a second or third date, or any date, and none of the ballots were appearing in the voting system. Additionally, the speaker notes that these ballots were being entered manually, and they asserted that none of these details would be present in the poll book or the system. The overall implication is that there was irregularity in the handling of these absentee ballots, with sequential numbers, indistinct dates, signatures resembling each other, and manual entry outside the expected process, raising concerns about whether the ballots were being processed consistent with standard procedures.

I was surprised to learn that there was no signature verification done for the ballots. I questioned how ballots without signatures were handled, and the response was they were just sent back out. This made me uncomfortable certifying the results.

In this video, the speaker discusses the analysis of ballot curing in Maricopa County. They compare the conservative case, where 11.29% of ballots should have been cured, to the county's curing rate of 1.31%. The speaker highlights that the number of ballots that should have been cured is far greater than what the county actually cured. They also mention that based on the extended study, a minimum of 4,965 ballots should have been thrown out due to signature mismatches, compared to the county's 587. The conclusion is that the county's signature verification process is flawed, contradicting their claim of having a rigorous process.

The speaker acknowledges the chairman's hard work and thanks him. Another speaker mentions an interesting incident during the 99% audit on signatures. They explain that many signatures did not have the required red initials, indicating approval. Once the ballot is separated from the outer envelope, it must be counted regardless. This poses a problem as dozens of ballots on Saturday had not been properly reviewed. The speaker concludes by expressing concern about the audit. Miss Fisher is thanked for her input.