TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Who determined the number 420,987,987 regarding failed signatures from the 2020 election? That figure comes from analyzing a quarter of the 1,900,000 mail-in ballots in Maricopa County. We had 150 trained workers review the envelopes based on the secretary of state's guidelines, examining each voter record individually. After analyzing 25% of the ballots, we extrapolated the data to arrive at the final number. It's important to note that this analysis only pertains to Maricopa County, which had over 2 million ballots in total, with around 1.9 million being mail-in votes. Yes, that is correct. Thank you. Proceed.

A Microsoft certified security expert provided evidence of a Dominion vote counting machine in a swing state with a wireless card connected to a thermostat's wireless network. The IP address traced back to a city in China, linked to a Chinese corporation involved in questionable dealings with American politicians. There is a thick binder of documented evidence showing foreign access and interference in the election, including public statements from the FBI and DHS warning about Iran's involvement. The evidence is undeniable, and those questioning it should argue with the FBI and DHS. The photographs and IPs provide conclusive proof of foreign interference in the voting systems.

Hans Von Spokowski: I'm Hans Von Spokowski with the Heritage Foundation. I'm Jason Sneed with the Honest Elections Project. Trent Englund: I'm Trent Englund with Save Our States. Hans Von Spokowski: And we have been working hard to guarantee that we have honest and fair elections. Some people Trent Englund: want to radically change elections with a new confusing process called ranked choice voting, which should really be called rigged choice voting because it disenfranchises voters and can lead to political activists trying to game the system to allow marginal candidates to win elections. Instead of just voting for one candidate, their top choice in a race, voters are forced to rank all the candidates from their first choice to their last choice. Then those preference votes are counted and if no candidate wins more than 50% of the vote, officials begin rounds of elimination. Candidates with the least support are eliminated and the voters who selected that candidate as their number one choice or top choice automatically have their votes changed to their second choice and another round of vote tabulation occurs. This process continues until one of the candidates ends up with a majority, but the winning candidate may be the second, third, fourth, or even last choice of most of the voters who initially cast ballots. Hans Von Spokowski: In a recent local California school board election using ranked choice voting, that's exactly what happened. But because ranked choice voting is so complex, nobody caught the mistake and the wrong winner was certified and installed in office after multiple rounds of vote counting. It took an outside audit to finally uncover the truth, and now the real winner has to sue to be recognized. That's just one problem with ranked choice voting. It also takes more time for voters to rank all of the candidates in a race and to fill out their ballots. Trent Englund: That means longer lines to polls. The ballots themselves are more complicated to fill out, creating more room for errors and mistakes that may get mail in ballots thrown out. It requires more complicated and expensive voting equipment and puts more strain on poll workers who have to manage a much more complicated election system. Jason Sneed: There's evidence that it discourages people from voting in the first place. And if voters don't rank all of the candidates in an election, their ballots run the risk of being thrown out and not counted in later rounds of vote tabulation. It took eight rounds of vote tabulation in the New York City mayor's race in 2021 over two weeks before the winner was determined. But the votes of more than 140,000 voters were thrown out and not included in the final count because they hadn't ranked all of the candidates in that race. It's no wonder then that some places have tried ranked choice voting only to repeal it. Trent Englund: Aspen, Colorado experimented with ranked choice voting in 2009, then voted overwhelmingly to get rid of it after only a single election. Voters in Alaska are organizing a campaign to repeal ranked choice voting there, which barely passed in a referendum election in the first place. And in Utah, where state lawmakers have allowed cities to experiment with ranked choice voting, many are expressing serious concerns that ranked choice voting is a bad process that doesn't deliver on its promises and implements a confusing, chaotic voting system. Hans Von Spokowski: Voters want elections to be easier, more secure, and more transparent. Trent Englund: Ranked choice voting makes voting harder and is the wrong choice for our elections. Ranked choice voting is a solution in search of a problem.

Mr. Benjamin Nakae. Mr. Nakae, welcome to the Advocate. Thank you. Mr. Nakae is a graduate of MIT. He is an Israeli, and he is a man who has written widely on this question before the house tonight.

Catherine Engelbrecht and Greg Phillips from Truth to Vote have done an incredible job. They have uncovered more fake votes than anyone in the country. They have evidence on tape, and we appreciate their hard work. We need to prepare and keep those tapes handy because we will all need them as a country. Thank you for your fantastic and patriotic work.

The speaker explains that they were asked to investigate President Obama's birth certificate due to suspicions of fraud. They clarify that their investigation was not about where the president was born, but about the authenticity of the document. They express their hope that the document would be valid, but after examining the evidence, they conclude that it is a fraudulently created document. They mention the criticism they faced for questioning the document and emphasize that their goal was always to uncover the truth. They introduce a video presentation that reveals evidence of forgery in the birth certificate, including identical angles in date stamps and copied elements from another birth certificate.

We provided our data to Dr. Walter Dougherty, a qualified expert in computer sciences and engineering. He reviewed the declarations and analytic data we presented and concluded that there were 99.99 signatures that could have been introduced into the 2022 election due to the broken system. This information is detailed in exhibit 4. Dr. Dougherty will explain the scientific math he used, which is industry standard.

The speaker, a well-versed American patriot, has been aware of the sketchiness of the election systems for about 15 or 16 years. They have been working with a group of people who have uncovered some significant findings. In 2018, the Dallas election had irregularities, which prompted the Texas governor to form a panel to investigate. This panel hired a cybersecurity group to study the irregularities, specifically on Dominion Machines. Over the past two years, this group has reverse-engineered the process of stealing an election using this equipment. The speaker has been associated with them since August and has been actively supporting their efforts for the past 4 or 5 months.

The speaker states that their investigation into President Obama's birth certificate has concluded that it is a fraudulently created document. They express their initial hope that the document was valid, but as evidence stacked up, they had to follow the evidence. They mention working with document examiner Reed Hayes and forensic digital technicians from 4 Labs in Italy. They show examples of forgery in the birth certificate, including copied words, letters, and date stamps. The speaker emphasizes that their investigation was not about Obama personally, but about the document itself. They conclude by saying that the findings are new, profound, and disturbing.

I am Eric Spikin, a forensic chemist and document analyst with experience in over 2,000 cases worldwide. I specialize in examining questioned documents for authenticity, alterations, and ink age. I was called to Arizona to analyze election-related printing processes, machine copied marks, and CPS code with my team.

The speaker discusses the investigation into Barack Obama's birth certificate. They mention working with forensic document examiners and digital technicians to analyze two birth certificates from Hawaii. The speaker claims that nine points of forgery were found, including copied words, letters, and date stamps. They focus on the similarity of the angles of the date stamps on both birth certificates, suggesting intentional alteration. The speaker concludes that the birth certificate belonging to Johanna Ani was used as a source document for Obama's birth certificate. They emphasize the significance of these findings and the disturbing nature of the situation.

The speaker claims to have found the source of ineligible voters being added to voter rolls: an organization called the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC), led by David Becker. Becker was allegedly involved in a scandal as a US attorney and later worked for left-leaning organizations. The speaker alleges that with George Soros' money, Becker created ERIC, which contracts with states to access DMV records and other sensitive data. According to the speaker, ERIC's membership agreement prohibits disclosing citizenship status, yet they add names to voter rolls and circulate the information. The speaker further claims that this information is then given to the Center for Election Innovation and Research, which received funding from Mark Zuckerberg.

Speaker 0 notes that Wisconsin was the first state where the evidence he and his associate Chris had put together for Peter was presented under oath in a senate committee. The presentation occurred before the Wisconsin senate committee on election integrity.

Dr. Walter Doretti, an expert in computer science and engineering, presented his credentials and experience during a hearing. He mentioned his education at Oklahoma Christian University and Harvard, where he obtained master's and doctorate degrees. With 37 years of teaching experience, including 32 years at Texas A&M University, he has also worked as a consultant for various corporations and government agencies, including classified projects. Dr. Doretti specializes in analyzing election data, particularly from the 2020 and 2022 Arizona elections, as voting machines are essentially computers and election data involves math. His expertise directly relates to the previous presentation by Ms. Bush.

Work for the department of justice. Been there, like, twenty three years. I'm an analyst. I'll be acting deputy chief of our office for a few months starting next week. I work closely with all the federal law enforcement agencies and the US attorney's offices As a gospel. The prosecutors and stuff. The thing is it's what you're saying because I do deal with so many of the agencies, like the Bureau of Brisons, the Marshal Service, the FBI, US attorney's offices. It's like

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.

Jacqueline Greger testifies to a preliminary finding report on activities impacting Arizona’s election integrity, focusing on the 2020 and 2022 general elections. She outlines a multi-year pattern beginning in 2017, alleging that “accents points” were used to change vote totals and election results, with illegal transfers moving money to candidates through phantom entities and for-profit and non-profit PACs created by Brittany Ray Chavez. She claims that during the 2022 election, ballot scanners and printers at 70 precincts had their printer settings changed through computer infiltration after being tested the night before the election, leading to uncontrollable ballots being placed in Box 3 and allegedly driven to Runbeck’s office. Witness information from October 2020 is cited, including more than 100,000 filed-in ballots and more than 13,000,000 identified in two unmarked rental cars used to move ballots and cash to Runbeck’s office. Runbeck is described as operated by Robert Runbeck, with deeds for Runbeck provided in the materials. Greger asserts a planned strategy involving Hobbs and Fontes: Hobbs would receive the Democratic nomination for governor, Fontes would run for secretary of state to replace Hobbs, and both would be bribe recipients evidenced by “Britney deeds.” She argues the fix for 2020 and 2022 started in 2017 with appointments to election positions of individuals bribed through a mortgage scheme and money laundering via phantom appointments. She emphasizes “the problems with these documents are many” and connects money laundering to drug cartel activity and human trafficking, arguing cartel investment aims to place reliable figures in key positions to advance their objectives. The report titled Preliminary Findings of Activities Impacting Arizona’s Election Integrity with specific focus on the 2020 and 2022 general elections is introduced by Greger, who provides her background: she has a master’s in marketing and honors degrees in finance, accounting, statistics, economics, and business strategy; resident of Scottsdale since 1997; owner of Finebreder Insurance Agency; principal investigator with Harris Thaler Law Firm since 2019. The team, led by John Harris Thaler (a 32-year attorney), investigates racketeering and corruption across multiple states. Thaler’s past work includes uncovering laundering of cartel money through real estate in Illinois, Idaho, and Iowa; real estate agents, escrow companies, and title insurers indicted for racketeering; investigations into money laundering through Arizona real estate; and a broader operation intertwining narcotics trafficking, tax evasion, payroll theft, bankruptcy fraud, insurance fraud, and election fraud. Greger states that more than 120,000 documents have been reviewed and that 47 filings exist in the report. She outlines a pattern of money laundering through single-family residences, inflated construction invoices, fake charitable donations, fictitious students in private schools, and fake bankruptcies. Wells Fargo and other banks are alleged to have opened accounts for phantom people; municipal and state systems in Mesa, including a private police force, are said to be compromised to support racketeering. She claims numerous forged or altered documents, including falsified deeds of trust and notary acts, with signatures forged or copied, often associated with Brittany Chavez and Donna Chavez. Key individuals and entities are named as bribe recipients and conspirators: Kathleen M. Hobbs and Patrick T. Goodman appear in a series of deeds with signatures and notarizations that Greger says are fraudulent; Brittany and Donna Chavez are identified as principal preparers of documents; the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office and relevant courts are alleged to have been infiltrated to upload falsified documents and remove legitimate ones. Greger discusses targeted election service providers, including Runbeck, and asserts that “the county database” has “no integrity whatsoever,” with backdoor access enabling document upload or deletion. She describes bribes to judges, prosecutors, and public officials across the state, including 25% of active judges in certain jurisdictions, and claims that elections including the governor, attorney general, and other offices were affected. Greger notes investigations are not limited to Arizona; FBI, IRS, US attorneys’ offices, and attorney generals in California and New Mexico have engaged with the findings. She emphasizes that the final report will be a 300-page book with about 3,000 attachments, to be published as Report to the Governor, and that excerpts and documentation will be available at reporttothegovernor.com. She clarifies that she and Thaler do not represent political candidates or parties, and that Thaler had not voted or donated in 2022. She closes by describing the data’s potential utility for enforcement agencies and asks for questions; a constituent video is requested to be played.

I'm Eric Spikin, a forensic chemist and document analyst with extensive experience in examining questioned documents. I have worked on over 2,000 cases across 5 continents and my expertise has been recognized by various media outlets including the Wall Street Journal, America's Most Wanted, Forensic Files, and Good Morning America. Recently, I was asked to investigate election-related matters in Arizona, focusing on printing processes, machine copied marks, and the CPS code used for counterfeit protection. I traveled to Arizona with three colleagues from my office to conduct the analysis.

Eric Spakin, a forensic chemist and document analyst, examined ballots from the Arizona audit. He found that approximately 25,000 ballots did not match the official Dominion PDF printing, showing imperfections in their lines. This discrepancy exceeds Joe Biden's victory margin of 10,457 votes. Additionally, Spakin noted a statistical anomaly where 61 groups of 200 ballots showed over 90% support for one candidate, with 58 favoring Biden and only 3 favoring Trump. This suggests potential manipulation in sorting ballots. Arizona's early voting process allows ballots to be counted weeks before election day, raising concerns about election integrity and the need for safeguards to ensure accurate results that reflect voters' choices.

As a computer scientist specializing in election system security, I want to highlight the vulnerabilities in computerized voting equipment used in polling places. These systems can be easily compromised, allowing corrupt candidates or foreign adversaries to disrupt elections and potentially alter vote tallies without detection. The poor design and implementation by equipment vendors contribute to these vulnerabilities. Additionally, voter registration databases and systems reporting final results are attractive targets for disruption, with even fewer standards for securing them. It is unrealistic to expect county election IT managers to defend against cyber attacks by foreign intelligence services. We need to address these issues to ensure the integrity of our elections.

- "The electoral systems of The United States can be manipulated by foreign agents or third parties." - "Are you in danger, physical danger, if your true identity is known?" - "Yes." - "We configured the transmission systems and the tally systems." - "I was the national coordinator for voting machines." - "You examined the forensic image of the election management server, that was used in the Mesa County twenty twenty election." - "In the case of Mesa, Colorado, all evidence, all log, all of that was deleted." - "We saw both images, the old one and the new one." - "And the structure changed, the structure of the program changed as compared to the version 5.5." - "Whoever gave the authorization for the system to be updated would be the person responsible for all the files that were deleted." - "It's easy to rig an election with it, and it's hard to audit."

I am Eric Spikin, a forensic chemist and document analyst with extensive experience in examining questioned documents. I have worked on over 2,000 cases across 5 continents and my expertise has been recognized by various media outlets such as the Wall Street Journal, America's Most Wanted, Forensic Files, and Good Morning America. Recently, I was asked to investigate election-related matters in Arizona, focusing on printing processes, machine copied marks, and the CPS code for counterfeit protection. I traveled to Arizona with three colleagues from my office to conduct the examination.

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.

Speaker 1, an expert in handwriting and signatures, believes that it is impossible to compare signatures for consistency in less than 3 seconds. They have extensive experience in this field and consider themselves to be at the top of their profession. Speaker 1 also explains that comparing signatures means carefully examining the similarities and differences between two items, in this case, signatures. They mention that Arizona statute 16,550 states that signatures should be compared for consistencies or inconsistencies. Speaker 1 emphasizes that the word "compare" is commonly used in their industry and has a clear meaning.

The speaker asserts that there was direct access to the Antrim County election management system (EMS). According to the forensic images, on November 5 an anonymous user logged on to the EMS remotely with escalated privileges and made changes to the database while attempting to retabulate the election. This is presented as a major development indicating remote access to the machines, and specifically remote access by an anonymous user with elevated privileges. Additionally, the speaker describes intentional modifications to ballot components. Ballots have black boxes along the side, with boxes 59 in total. The forensic images allegedly show that blocks 15, 18, 28, 41, and 44 were intentionally modified, altering their height and width to generate errors. The claimed consequence of these modifications is that errors were produced which led to ballot rejections. Specifically, ballots in which a voter chose Donald Trump and then fed the ballot into the machine were rejected at a rate 20% higher than ballots for Joe Biden.