TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

In this video, the speaker discusses the importance of securing election systems. They highlight the risk of connecting these systems to the internet, as it can make them vulnerable to hacking. The speaker suggests that using paper ballots might be a smarter option, as they cannot be hacked like computer systems. By having something tangible to hold on to, like a piece of paper, we can ensure the integrity of the election process.

In this video, the speaker talks about a voting system that had 36 million votes in one day. They emphasize the use of strong voter ID and identification, along with special paper ballots that have watermarks, making them difficult to forge. The speaker mentions that there were no disputes, and the winner was happy while the loser was unhappy. They highlight the benefits of same-day voting, paper ballots, and voter ID, stating that it saves a lot of money.

Voting systems are designed to be closed systems without internet connectivity or external devices. Dominion, the company mentioned, does not have any remote access to the equipment or machines. No one has access to the information on the machines remotely.

Linda McLaughlin and her colleagues present a data-focused argument alleging election fraud in Georgia, supported by multiple data analyses and demonstrations. - Linda McLaughlin introduces the data integrity group and states that data is numerical and non-partisan; she aims to remedy a lack of presented data in the discussion. - Dave Labou, a lead data scientist, explains that their analysis across precincts, counties, and the state identified over 40 data points of negative voting or vote switching across candidates totaling over 200,000 votes. Separately, machine learning algorithms used for anomaly detection in fraud detection flagged over 500 precincts with over 1,000,000 corresponding votes showing suspicious activity. He emphasizes that the process is scientific and not tied to political affiliations. - Labou uses a banking analogy to illustrate data integrity concerns: in hypothetical online banking, deposits or withdrawals being redirected or split would indicate fraudulent activity. He applies this concept to voting data, arguing that the voting system data aligns with the Secretary of State data used to certify results, yet exhibits patterns akin to transfers and reallocation not authorized by voters. - He states that the data are publicly available but require advanced programming to extract, parse, and join datasets. Their independent team has made all analysis, programs, and data public to allow replication and has produced videos to translate the analysis for broader understanding. - A key claim is that receiving over 90% in a precinct is a marker for fraud; in Fulton County, more than 150 precincts voted 90% or more for Biden, and in the statewide race (decided by less than 13,000 votes), these 150 Fulton precincts accounted for 152,000 Biden votes, described as a clear indicator of suspicious or fraudulent activity. - Labou and team present a series of visuals and explanations indicating explicit vote count switching, e.g., in Dodge County, where Trump’s votes appear to be subtracted while Biden’s counts increase in tandem with county updates, leading to a shift in totals that would not appear in state totals due to timing of updates. - They reference adjudication as the review of ballots flagged during scanning, noting that only ballots with a contest causing questions about how the computer reads them are adjudicated. - In DeKalb County, they assert it is statistically impossible for nine out of ten voters to vote for Biden in 94 precincts. - They describe a data flow in Fulton County: poll pad check-in, ballot image saved on the machine, SD cards transported to drop-off locations, escorted to a warehouse, run through Democracy Suite, exported to a Dominion server, and inserted into a SQL Server database before transmission to the Secretary of State and data aggregators. - A critical point is the vulnerability within the county update data-entry process: the square box detailing data-entry options in the election software allows updating vote batches, projecting batches, and generating new or temporary batches that can be injected directly into the tally; these options can be validated and published, enabling potential manipulation before server upload. - They pose questions about validation: whether two observers from both parties were present during SD card transmissions and drop-off transmissions, and whether there is a public log of exchanges at drop-off points. They challenge why elected officials have not pursued these questions about voting integrity. - Labou notes the process is machine-to-machine and, by design, should not decrement sums; any decrement requires a robust explanation, and their data suggest negative drops are inconsistent with normal sequential processes. Speaker 2 clarifies the data sources (CITL election night data and Edison/New York Times data) and asserts that the process from poll pads to secretary of state is machine-driven, with no human entry of totals, thereby removing human entry error as an explanation for observed negative changes. Speaker 4 adds emphasis on the validation and potential vulnerabilities in the software options used for election administration, underscoring the need for transparency and inquiry into the electoral process.

Each counting table has a screen where individuals read paper ballots line by line. Two people, ideally from different parties, record the results provided by the ballot readers. This process began at 9 AM and aims to ensure the machine counts match the paper counts. So far, no discrepancies have been found. This method, requested by voters, is supported by both parties to ensure votes are accurately counted and trusted. Additionally, it saves the county money and speeds up the voting process by allowing multiple paper ballots to be processed simultaneously, eliminating the need for expensive machines that require frequent replacement.

Voting systems are designed as closed systems without any Internet connectivity or external access. They are not meant to connect to the outside world in any way. Is there any remote access to the information on the equipment or within the machines? No, there is no remote access. Does anyone have access, to the best of your knowledge? No, no one has access.

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.

Election machines are not connected to the Internet. Certification processes, beginning at the federal level, mandate that election systems operate in a closed, air-gapped system with no Internet connection.

In this video, the speaker discusses the importance of securing election systems. They highlight the risk of connecting these systems to the internet, as it can make them vulnerable to hacking. The speaker suggests that using paper ballots might be a smarter option, as they cannot be hacked like computer systems. By having something tangible to hold on to, like a piece of paper, it becomes more difficult for entities like Russia to interfere with the election process.

Speaker 0 recalls Speaker 1 saying they wanted the login for every computer. Speaker 0 didn't understand it at the time, but now realizes that accessing the computers is key to reforming the government. Speaker 1 states that the government is run by hundreds of computers. Even a presidential executive order must ultimately be implemented at a computer. To understand accounting and eliminate waste and fraud, one must analyze the computer database. Asking humans to ask other humans and contractors is inefficient. The only way to reconcile databases and eliminate waste and fraud is to examine the computers directly. Speaker 1 refers to this as "reprogramming the matrix" and says it involves understanding and reconciling computer databases to identify waste and fraud.

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 discuss how ballot boxes are stuffed with fake votes using computer programs. They explain that the programs follow an algorithm to add a certain number of ballots from each age group to make it look realistic. They mention that the census helps determine how many ballots to add. They also mention that if they run out of pre-stuffed ballots, they have to pause the election until more are printed. They highlight the importance of proving that the ballots are fraudulent, both through physical evidence and by identifying inconsistencies in voter information. The speakers express that initially, the claims may have seemed crazy, but now they believe everything is starting to make sense.

The speaker expresses frustration about a blank ballot that was not voted on. They mention being able to stop adjudication and scan and adjudicate all ballots, including the blank one. Misty asks if a ballot can be scanned more than once, and the speaker confirms that they have done it. They explain that they kept scanning the same batches of ballots. The speaker mentions that they have set the system to handle ambiguous marks and overvotes, but it should also handle blank ballots. They scan a blank ballot and accept it into the system, noting that the system does not know who touched the ballots during adjudication.

Speaker 0 asserts that there was direct access to the Antrim County election management system (EMS). They claim that 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, they say, constitutes a significant development, proving that the machines were remotely accessed and that access was by an anonymous user with elevated system privileges. Speaker 0 also discusses ballots, referring to black boxes on the side of the ballot, noting that there are 59 such black boxes. They state that forensic images show that in Antrim County, blocks 15, 18, 28, 41, and 44 were intentionally modified. The modification involved altering the height, width, and shape of those blocks with the intention of generating errors. They describe the consequence of such modifications: by modding these specific blocks, they were able to cause rejections for Republican ballots. Specifically, they claim that if a ballot voted for Donald Trump and was fed into the machine, that ballot was rejected at a rate 20% higher than for Joe Biden ballots.

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.

The Dominion system has two main components: the regular bucket and the adjudication bucket. In the regular bucket, votes are treated in a standard way. However, in the adjudication bucket, the operator has the power to make decisions at their discretion or apply the ranked choice voting algorithm. This means they can essentially do whatever they want with the votes. In some cases, like in Arizona, adjudication can be preprogrammed with specific commands, such as directing a certain percentage of adjudicated ballots to be cast for specific candidates, regardless of the actual votes.

The video discusses concerns about the potential manipulation of votes in election software. It questions whether proper validation processes were followed, such as having observers from both parties present during the transmission of SD cards and the transportation of ballots. The speaker also mentions the use of election night reporting data and emphasizes that there is no human entry of totals, which eliminates the possibility of human error.

Cybersecurity experts agree that electronic voting machines are dangerous and obsolete. These machines can be easily hacked, as demonstrated by a computer scientist who has hacked multiple machines and even turned one into a video game console. The vulnerability of these machines puts our election infrastructure at risk of sabotage and cyberattacks. In the 2016 election, millions of Americans voted on paperless electronic machines. The speaker reveals a step-by-step process for hacking these machines and stealing votes. The solution proposed is to use paper ballots, which can be quickly scanned and verified by humans. It is emphasized that all elections should be run with paper ballots and audits. The importance of having a paper backup system is highlighted. The concise transcript emphasizes the need to replace electronic voting machines with paper ballots for secure and reliable elections.

The speaker describes a situation in which registration and voting can occur even when a person does not live in the country, citing an example involving a brother in Pakistan to illustrate the point. According to the speaker, there is evidence of two or three other people who are outside the country voting, as well as people residing outside of the district. This is presented as a factual observation about who has voted, including individuals located abroad and not within the local district boundaries. The speaker then critiques the online voter registration system by characterizing it as an honor system. The claim is that anybody can enter information into the online system to register and vote, relying on the promise of truthfulness. The process alleged by the speaker is described as follows: a person would place information into the system and then simply click a box stating that they are not lying about the information provided. After doing so, the person would receive an email from the secretary of state or a similar official channel in the mail, indicating acknowledgment or thanks for registering to vote, effectively confirming their registration. Following this registration, the speaker notes a procedural consequence: once an individual is on the voter rolls, they are mailed a ballot for each election. In other words, the pattern described is that being on the voter rolls automatically leads to receiving a mailed ballot for every election that occurs, according to the speaker’s account of how the system operates. The speaker emphasizes a continuity of this process across elections, implying that the mailed ballot would be a recurring consequence of enrollment on the voter rolls. Throughout the account, there is an emphasis on what the speaker views as the potential vulnerability or problematic nature of the system. The speaker asserts that the combination of an online registration process that relies on an honor system, the possibility of registering with false or unverified information, and the automatic mailing of ballots to those on the rolls creates a situation that the speaker finds problematic. The overall narrative connects the initial observations about individuals voting from abroad and outside the district to a broader critique of the online registration and ballot distribution processes, underscoring concerns about eligibility verification and the integrity of the voting system as described by the speaker.

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.

A computer science professor explains how a voting machine can be easily manipulated by gaining physical access to it. By connecting a computer to the machine's serial port, one can rewrite the code and control the election results. The professor also highlights the lack of security measures on these machines, making them vulnerable to hacking. Another expert shares their experience of being left alone with voting machines after an election, emphasizing how easily someone could insert malware into them. The central count scanner discussed is widely used in America for counting ballots. The speakers mention the ease of obtaining the machine's software from a Russian server and the numerous individuals who have access to the machines, including potential adversaries. They conclude that the multitude of possible hacks and entry points make it unlikely that someone isn't taking advantage of these vulnerabilities.

Voting systems are designed as closed systems without internet connectivity or external connections. Dominion does not have remote access to information or the machines themselves. No one has access to the machines to the best of the speaker's knowledge.

Voting systems are designed as closed systems without internet connectivity or external connections. Dominion does not have remote access to information or the machines themselves. No one has access to the machines to the best of the speaker's knowledge.

The speaker discusses the importance of paper documents, such as the Declaration of Independence and voting ballots. They explain how voting machines can be manipulated, using the example of a dollar bill being rejected by a vending machine. They question why mail-in ballots in heavily Democratic areas are consistently accurate, while those in Republican areas are frequently out of calibration. The speaker suggests that human intervention allows for interpretation of voter intent, which they believe is unacceptable.

The Dominion system has two buckets: the regular bucket and the adjudication bucket. In the regular bucket, votes are treated one way, while in the adjudication bucket, the operator has discretion to do anything they want or apply the ranked choice voting algorithm. Adjudication can be preprogrammed with commands like casting a certain percentage of ballots for specific candidates. The system takes votes and apportions them, rather than counting whole votes. Adjudication can be manual or determined by an algorithm. It's important to understand these two buckets and how they function.