TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The speaker points out duplicate ballots in the video, showing examples where the word "Republican" is written the same way on different ballots. They have a total of 62 images showing similar instances. The batch numbers for the duplicate ballots are provided as well. It is clear that the same batch was scanned multiple times, resulting in duplicate ballots.

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.

In my examination of the photographs, I found that there were approximately 5,000 different ballots produced by the election subcontractor for each zone or district in Maricopa County. These ballots were specific to the issues relevant to each area. However, I discovered that around 25,000 ballots were not printed from the official Dominion PDF ballot. These ballots had imperfections in the lines and breaks in the circles or ovals, which were consistent across all of them. These 25,000 unidentifiable ballots alone represent more than double the margin of Joe Biden's 10,457 vote lead.

A poll worker noticed that absentee ballot numbers were in sequence, which should not occur with mailed ballots. The worker noticed ballot numbers like 2232 next to 2233. The worker asked a supervisor about the envelopes lacking a specific date, showing only "November 0-2020," but was rebuked. The poll worker stated the sequential ballot numbers were all from the same area, Guarded Street in downtown Detroit, and the signatures looked alike. The envelopes had no date stamp and were missing the day of the month. The ballots were not in the system and were being entered manually, even though the details were not in the poll book.

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.

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, who has experience with ballots, describes their observation of pristine and clean ballots. They noticed a slight eclipse on the bubble for Joseph R. Biden, which appeared on 107 out of 110 ballots. Every vote on every ballot, including referendums, was exactly the same, which the speaker finds statistically impossible. They believe these were preprinted ballots and suspect that some test ballots from before the election were mixed in. Out of 800 ballots, less than 40 were for Trump and 7 for Jorgensen. The speaker emphasizes the unusual cleanliness of the ballots, as there were no creases or signs of wear. They question how these ballots were not folded and express disbelief at the anomaly.

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.

The arrival of paper at the factory is important because it should match what was sent out or greater. Discrepancies could indicate extra ballots. The high-end machines used for printing have clickers that record the exact number of ballots produced. If the clicker count doesn't match what was printed, mailed, or destroyed, there's a problem. The entire process is documented with date and time stamps, employee stamps, and paperwork. When ballots are mailed out, there are records of names, time stamps, date stamps, and financial remittance. The same applies when they are returned or put into drop boxes. Each step has a paper trail with names, dates, and timestamps. However, when all this information is reviewed, it doesn't add up.

The speakers assert that there is evidence of direct access to the Antrim County election management system (EMS). In the forensic images, they note that on November 5 an anonymous user logged onto the EMS remotely and performed actions with escalated privileges, making changes to the database during attempts to retabulate the election. They describe this as a major development, because it demonstrates that the machines were accessed remotely, and crucially, that the remote access was by an anonymous user who possessed elevated privileges within the system. They present this as a significant point for those who oppose forensic auditing or who are against non-forensic reviews. They also reference visible features on ballots, specifically the black boxes along the side of the ballot. The ballots reportedly contain 59 of these black boxes. In the forensic images, they indicate that certain blocks—numbers 15, 18, 28, 41, and 44—were intentionally modified. The described modifications concerned the height, width, and overall shape of these blocks, with the stated purpose of generating errors. Regarding the consequences of these modifications, the narrative claims that by altering these specific blocks, errors were created that led to rejections of Republican ballots. In other words, ballots cast for Donald Trump that were processed through the machine allegedly faced a higher likelihood of being rejected due to these block modifications. The asserted outcome is that such ballots were rejected at a rate of 20% more than ballots cast for Joe Biden.

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.

Approximately 25,000 ballots were not created from the PDF used for the election process. The election provider creates specific ballots for different geographical areas. In Maricopa County, there were over 5,000 different permutations and combinations of the ballots, with a Spanish version available for each. These ballots are created in advance as some are sent out by third parties and for early voting. However, the quality of the ballots in this group is significantly worse than the PDFs that are printed on demand or by the regular provider.

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.

Approximately 25,000 ballots were not created from the PDF used for the election process in Maricopa County. The election provider customizes the ballots based on geographical areas to ensure voters are selecting the appropriate candidates. There are over 5,000 different permutations and combinations of these ballots, which are also available in Spanish. The reason for creating these ballots in advance is to accommodate third-party mail-in ballots and early voting options. However, the quality of the printed ballots in this group is significantly lower than what would be expected from a PDF. They appear to be degraded compared to on-demand or third-party printed ballots.

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.

Both ballots show identical markings, including a distinctive tail and the word "Republican." The speaker points out the same dot in each image. They have a total of 62 images showing duplicates, with one example being batch 5162. The speaker highlights specific instances where the same batch was scanned multiple times, revealing duplicate ballots.

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.

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.

The speaker noticed a batch of absentee ballots that stood out because they were in pristine condition, unlike the others which were worn. These ballots had no folds and felt different. One ballot had a white eclipse in the bubble where it should have been filled. As they sorted the ballots, they realized that a significant number of them were exactly the same, with no folds. One ballot in the stack was also misaligned. Additionally, instead of the usual 100, this batch had 110 ballots, which was unusual.

I found that there were 5,000 different ballots created for specific districts in Maricopa County. Additionally, approximately 25,000 ballots did not match the official Dominion PDF ballot, with consistent imperfections around an oval on each one. These 25,000 unidentifiable ballots alone exceed Joe Biden's 10,457 vote margin.

The "fit to print" issue has occurred in previous elections, specifically the August 2020 primary, the November 2020 general election, and the August 2022 primary election. It is related to human error on election day while trying to resolve a printer problem. The total number of ballots impacted by this issue was just under 1300.

There are two different batches of votes being discussed in the video. The speaker points out that there are similarities between the ballots in these batches, such as a little tail and the word "Republican" written on them. They mention that there are a total of 62 images in the batch, but they didn't have time to go through all of them. The speaker doesn't remember the exact numbers of the batches, but they mention that duplicate ballots were scanned multiple times.

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.