reSee.it - 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 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.

In the 2020 Maricopa General Election, 120,867 ballots, or 6% of the total, were compromised through forced adjudication. This represents 9 times the deciding outcome of the election. The compromise was an intentional and avoidable paper and ink hack, where control over the ballot stock was necessary. The use of Sharpie pens, which were encouraged for the first time in history, combined with inferior ballot paper, caused bleed-through votes that confused the scanning machine. This allowed for extra votes to be counted, leading to potential election manipulation. The net effect of this hack in Maricopa County was approximately 120,867 compromised ballots.

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.

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.

We've noticed design flaws in ballots from different counties, including see-through paper and consistent hole placement for yes/no votes. This trend is concerning. I'm interested in the role of nonprofits advising county clerks on ballot design.

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.

There are two batches of votes being examined. The speaker points out that there are identical markings on different ballots, suggesting duplication. They show examples of the same markings and even a dot in the same spot. The speaker mentions having a total of 62 images, but didn't go through all of them. The numbers of the batches are not remembered, but it is clear that duplicate ballots were scanned multiple times.

Speaker 0 mentions the possibility of printing out something. Speaker 1 asks if there is an explanation for the uncounted votes. Speaker 2 clarifies that there is no concrete explanation for why those votes were not counted by the machine in the first place. Speaker 1 confirms that they don't know why the votes didn't get scanned. Speaker 2 asks if the Dominion Tech guys have figured out the reason, but Speaker 0 says they are not allowed to comment. Speaker 1 believes it wasn't a memory card issue. Speaker 2 asks if memory cards can be ruled out, and Speaker 1 agrees. Speaker 0 suggests it may be human error, but they don't have evidence to confirm it. Speaker 2 questions if it could be a software issue, but Speaker 0 refuses to speculate. Speaker 2 acknowledges the lack of a definite answer.

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.

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.

The speaker was contacted to assist with examining ballots during the audit in Maricopa County. However, they were only able to examine photographs of the ballots, not the actual ballots themselves. They noticed that many of the ballots had a counterfeit protection system (CPS) code, but the photographs were not clear enough to determine what the code said. The CPS code is a series of yellow dots that can determine when and where a document was printed. It is visible to a trained eye or with magnification, but not to the naked eye. The code can provide information about the machine and date of printing. However, without access to the actual ballots, the speaker cannot draw any conclusions.

Approximately 25,000 ballots were not created from the usual PDF format for the election process in Maricopa County. These ballots are tailored to specific geographical areas to account for different voting preferences. The ballots are created in advance in PDF format for mail-in and early voting convenience. However, the quality of the printed ballots in this case was significantly lower than expected, indicating a problem with the printing process.

Speaker 0 mentions the possibility of printing out something. Speaker 1 asks if there is an explanation for why certain votes were not counted. Speaker 2 clarifies that there is no concrete explanation for why those votes were not counted by the machine. Speaker 1 confirms that they do not know why the votes were not scanned. Speaker 2 asks if the Dominion Tech guys have figured out the reason, but Speaker 0 says they are not allowed to comment. Speaker 2 asks if it could be a memory card issue, but Speaker 1 and Speaker 0 both say they don't think so. Speaker 0 suggests it could be human error, but they don't have evidence to confirm it. Speaker 2 questions if it could be a software issue, but Speaker 0 avoids speculation. They admit they don't have a definite answer yet. Speaker 2 acknowledges this and thanks them.

The speakers observed irregularities in the ballots, suspecting that they were not filled out by hand but rather printed. They noticed that the bubbles were perfectly filled and not aligned correctly. The paper used for the ballots was very thin, with some ballots having more than 50% missing or torn off. This raised concerns as it seemed intentional and could affect the voters' intent. The speakers emphasized that someone else was determining the voters' choices, effectively voting on their behalf.

Eric Spakane, a forensic chemist and forensic document analyst, testified that there were about 25,000 ballots not printed from the official Dominion PDF ballot. He said the printing process and appearance are completely different than what you would get from a first generation PDF printing. He explained that in Maricopa County there were approximately 5,012 or a little over 5,000 different ballot permutations and combinations due to different races and districts, and this is multiplied by two because there is a Spanish version for each ballot. In total, about 5,000 different ballots are created ahead of time and are created in PDF. These PDFs are prepared in advance for mail-in ballots and for early voting, which uses vote on demand, allowing someone to vote in a downtown location using a ballot from their area. He noted that PDFs are high quality, and when printed they should look roughly the same as the PDF, but he found that the quality of these ballots degraded when printed, compared to on-demand or third-party provider printing. Spakane stated that in the group of ballots he examined, the election subcontractor Minion produced ballots for each zone or district involved in the area he looked at in Maricopa County. He reiterated that there were about 5,000 approximately different ballots, reflecting the various races and jurisdictions (e.g., two different senator races, multiple house races, and all permutations and combinations). He claimed that about 25,000 ballots were not printed from the official Dominion PDF ballot, and that the printing process produced marks that did not align with the perfect lines and breaks seen in the PDFs. He observed that early voting ballots and election-day ballots from various polling locations showed printing with breaks in all the same places around an oval, indicating imperfections in the lines at the same spots on every ballot. Speaker 1 stated that these 25,000 unidentifiable ballots alone represent over double Joe Biden's 10,457 vote mark. He framed this as a comparison to the election results. Speaker 2 claimed that in July 2021, and even in June earlier, they suspected that there were 25,000 plus counterfeit or inauthentic ballots. He attributed this to propaganda by the GOP’s attorney and other conservative operatives who allegedly planted the seed that “you can't trust that.” He asserted that everyone up there knew this in advance, even before the hearing, and criticized those involved for not reacting to prevent duplication in 2022, saying they did nothing and allowed it to be done again.

The speaker believes that the rejected ballots were placed in a separate box to be later counted at the headquarters. The rejection happened at the voting center due to invalid ballots that wouldn't match any tabulator's program. The question arises if Maricopa County was contacted to clarify their processes. It is mentioned that the rejected ballots would be sent to central tabulation to be duplicated onto readable ballots and inserted into the system. However, there is no way for voters to confirm if this process was actually carried out, which raises concerns.

The speaker witnessed someone using correction tape inside a tabulator machine, which caused the ballots to get jammed. The tape was placed back in the machine after being peeled off. The speaker explained that if a ballot goes through the machine with the tape on it, the machine won't read anything, and the user can override it. The speaker also mentioned that the ballots had no numbers at the top, but they assumed the machine wouldn't read them and the user could manually input the ticket type. The person operating the machine repeatedly put the same set of 27 ballots in instead of separating them, resulting in an inaccurate count. The speaker explained that the machine doesn't have a way to detect if the same ballot has been inserted multiple times, as the sensor and reader are covered.

In recounting votes, I've noticed that simply comparing hand counts to machine counts doesn't address the origin of the ballots being counted. Often, we don't even know which precinct a ballot came from, especially when dealing with two-sided ballots. We focus solely on the vote itself without considering the front of the ballot. Additionally, the image quality of these questionable ballots in Pennsylvania and Arizona is not being examined during the recount process.

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.

Speaker 0 mentions the possibility of printing out something. Speaker 1 asks about the reason for the uncounted votes. Speaker 2 clarifies that there is no concrete explanation for why those votes were not counted by the machine. Speaker 1 confirms that they don't know why the votes didn't get scanned. Speaker 2 asks if the Dominion Tech guys have figured out the reason, but Speaker 0 says they are not allowed to comment. Speaker 2 points out that it hasn't been confirmed if it was a memory card issue. Speaker 1 agrees and suggests it could be human error. Speaker 0 says the ballots didn't transfer over correctly, but they don't have a definite answer yet. Speaker 2 asks if it could be a software issue, but Speaker 0 refuses to speculate. They conclude that they don't have a pinpointed answer at the moment.

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.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if they heard Mr. Jared testify about a 20-inch ballot being used in the November 2022 general election. Speaker 1 confirms that they did. Speaker 0 then asks if a 19-inch ballot image projected on a 20-inch piece of paper, used in the Maricopa election, would be rejected when placed into a vote center tabulator. Speaker 1 responds that it would indeed be rejected.

Senator Bennett and others discuss how ballots are read by tabulation machines and what causes rejections. The corner marks (timing marks) determine top/bottom of the ballot, while the side marks determine the alignment of the bubble to be counted for a candidate or measure. The machines reject ballots when timing marks are incorrect or too small. The speakers explain that if timing marks are not exactly the right size and they are not perfectly black, the software will reject the ballot; blotchy printing can also trigger rejection because timing marks must be 100% black and of the correct size. Madam chair notes that many unreadable ballots were attributed to printers being set incorrectly and printing too lightly. The first reason ballots are rejected is timing marks being too small. A presenting slide shows that the bottom ballot has timing marks that are 5% larger on the edges, but the computer program requires precise, perfectly black timing marks; any white specs in the black box render the timing mark invalid and the ballot ejected. The blotchy printing is linked to printer fuser temperature settings; ballots printed on heavier paper (80 or 100 pound) require higher fuser temperatures. If the temperature isn’t high enough, toner doesn’t bind and appears blotchy, causing invalid timing marks. Speaker 1 asks whether central count machines or other systems could be set to accept lighter print, vs. those used at voting centers. Speaker 0 rejects this, stating the same ballot definition file is used and central count did not allow looser image requirements. The discussion clarifies two types of marks: timing marks (must be perfectly black and correctly sized) and voter bubbles (the threshold for counting a vote). The threshold setting on the scanner determines whether a bubble is counted: typically between 14% and 35% fill. If a bubble is less than about 14% filled, it is considered a stray mark; if more than about 35% filled, it is counted for the selected option. Some voters may partially fill an oval, or fill more extensively, and the software uses this threshold to decide if a vote is cast. In summary, ballots are rejected if timing marks are not perfectly black or incorrectly sized, or if printing is blotchy due to inappropriate printer settings. Central count uses the same ballot definition file, so lighter prints are not accepted. The bubble threshold determines which marks are counted as votes, with explicit percentage cutoffs to distinguish stray marks from valid votes.

The speaker discusses the concept of overvoting, which occurs when multiple parties are voted for in a section where only one vote is allowed. They mention scanning a new batch of ballots and scanning them again, even though they have already been scanned once. The speaker remarks that all the ballots went through the system without any apparent issues. They then mention going back to RTR.