reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Mathematicians, statisticians, and economists have concluded that the math behind Biden's victory is not just statistically improbable, but statistically impossible. Voter turnout in Wisconsin exceeded the historical record by almost 30 percentage points, with odds of this occurring at 0.0000189% or 1 in 52,000,000. This deviation is considered a virtual statistical impossibility. Biden also fails a test for detecting election fraud used by the state department and forensic accountants. Additionally, there is a record number of 90-year-olds registered to vote in Pennsylvania during a pandemic, surpassing any previous year.

In Fulton County, it was discovered that 17,324 votes had no ballot images, despite the requirement of having an image to create a cast vote record and to tabulate. It is unclear whether the images were deleted, replaced, or if the votes were created without evidence. This discrepancy resulted in an additional 13,000 votes for Biden and 4,000 votes for Trump, giving Biden a net advantage of 9,000 votes. The margin of victory in the county was 11,779 votes.

In Georgia, over 200,000 mail-in ballots were found to have been voted but never marked as returned. About 96,000 of these ballots were never marked as returned but were still voted. This issue was not limited to just a few counties, as it was seen across the board. Additionally, some ballots were shown as voted before they were even received back by the county, which is not supposed to happen. These irregularities raise concerns about the legality of these votes.

The speaker discusses irregularities in the voting data in Esther County and Lehigh County. In Esther County, there are decreases in both absentee and election day votes, which is unusual. Trump loses a significant number of votes in both categories. In Lehigh County, Trump initially receives over 66,000 votes, but they are then taken away and he receives incremental updates to reach that number again. The speaker questions why the updates are not equal to the votes that were removed and what is causing these discrepancies.

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.

Joe Biden's vote count seems implausible, as he supposedly received 15 million more votes than Barack Obama, yet we didn't gain net House seats after losing the presidency. We also lost 19 out of 20 bellwether races. There are claims of fraudulent ballots from non-existent voters, which raises questions about the integrity of the election process. Trump announced his lead in Philadelphia late at night, but counting was allegedly stopped, only to resume early the next morning, resulting in a shift in the vote count. This situation has led to suspicions about the counting process and transparency during the election.

Over 1,500,000 fraudulent votes counted, and the spread is less than 82,000 votes. These fraudulent votes come from dead voters, ballots that were received before they were supposedly mailed out, and over 330,000 electronic spikes from the voting machine. 205,000 over votes, meaning there were 205,000 more votes than registered voters, and 682,000 ballots that were illegally processed without any oversight whatsoever. More than 1,500,000 votes in Pennsylvania is apparently what it took for Joe Biden to steal the state. Georgia has a similar phenomenon that Democrats are failing to account for. 66,248 underage voters voted in Georgia. 10,315 dead people voted. 2,500 convicted felons voted. Nearly 200,000 votes were fraudulently inserted into the vote instantaneously. 4,500 votes come from unregistered voters. These numbers show a clear pattern that a variety of types of fraud occurred in this election and that Democrats are desperately trying to cover it up. They're going to great lengths to change the narrative of the election fraud in an effort to run up the clock to 01/20/2020. In addition to president Trump's team, many independent groups have completed research on the fraud and the results are staggering. Totaling across the country, millions of votes were fraudulently covered up, changed, or deleted in favor of Joe Biden. The governors and secretaries of state have actively participated in the cover up. Removing information from their website that is normally easily accessible to the public and depriving conservatives a chance to audit or review the results are just some of their tactics. In Arizona, the final result is only a difference of 10,457, yet 36,400 non citizens voted in the state. Arizona also experienced phantom spikes from the voting machines to the tune of roughly 50,000 additional votes going to Joe Biden. These numbers come from information that is publicly available, whether from the secretary of state's website before the content was removed or from the raw data that was pushed out on election night.

Around 80-90% of the votes seemed to be going to Joe Biden, which made me increasingly uneasy as the day went on. Every time I saw another batch of votes, it was all for Biden. This seemed statistically impossible to me.

There were odd patterns in the ballots, with repeated anomalies over multiple days. Some ballots had a pattern of 7 for Biden and 1 for Trump, which is statistically unlikely. The patterns were reported, but it's unclear if they were included in the final report. The physical recount aligned with the claimed numbers, but behind the scenes, there were over 17,000 duplicate mail-in ballots. The audit suggests that over 60,000 counted ballots may be illegal, which could significantly impact the election outcome. Voting is considered the most important right in the United States, and having it stolen is devastating.

In Georgia, over 96,000 mail-in ballots were voted but never marked as returned. This issue was found across multiple counties, indicating a widespread problem. Additionally, some ballots were voted before being received back. These irregularities suggest potential illegal votes.

There were 138,000 votes that came in all at once, and they all went to Biden, which is statistically improbable. In any election, even in the most Democratic areas, you'd expect some votes for the opposing candidate. This situation raises concerns about the counting process, especially since it appears this spike occurred around 4:30 AM. Additionally, Nevada has unexpectedly stopped counting votes during the day, which is illogical and raises further questions about the transparency of the process. It’s unusual for counting to halt when there should still be workers tallying votes.

The speaker discusses irregularities in the voting data in Esther County and Lehigh County. In Esther County, there are decreases in both absentee and election day votes, which is unusual. Trump loses a significant number of votes in both categories. In Lehigh County, Trump initially receives over 66,000 votes, which are then taken away and later restored through incremental updates. However, the updates do not match the exact amount that was removed. The speaker questions why these irregularities are occurring and what is the explanation behind them.

Unobserved ballots in Allegheny County and Philadelphia raised questions about 700,000 mail-in ballots. A cyber team used public data from the Secretary of State's website, which was updated regularly. The 2.5 million ballot count post-election is now missing from the site without explanation.

Trump's statewide lead is over half, but it's uneven across regions. Cumberland County is noteworthy, with about 75% of the vote in. This area, including Carlisle, has seen Democratic growth, particularly in fast-growing suburbs near Harrisburg. In 2020, Biden performed well here, and currently, Trump is falling short of that performance. The remaining election day votes could change the outcome. Observing whether Trump can surpass his 2020 numbers in Cumberland County is crucial, as this region significantly contributed to his loss in Pennsylvania in 2020. We'll continue to monitor the results as they come in.

In Fulton County, it was discovered that 17,324 certified results had no ballot images. It is unclear if the images were deleted, replaced, or if the votes were created without evidence. This discrepancy resulted in an additional 13,000 votes for Biden and 4,000 votes for Trump. The margin of victory was 11,779, so this discrepancy gave Biden a net advantage of 9,000 votes.

Joe Biden could not have received more votes than Barack Obama, and it’s improbable that we lost the presidency while gaining 12 House seats. We didn’t win 19 out of 20 bellwether races and still lose. There were fraudulent ballots created for non-existent voters, which is why envelopes were discarded. Trump announced he was leading by 800,000 votes in Philadelphia, insisting they wouldn’t be blocked from counting. There was confusion when it was suggested counting would stop for the night, but when counting resumed the next morning, the results changed, indicating a shift in the outcome.

During the examination, it was discovered that there were 61 groups of 200 ballots that had over 90% support for one candidate. This is unusual in a close race unless it is due to a specific geographical area. However, these groups were not specific to any particular area as they came from the central collection center for mail-in and early voting ballots. What's even more surprising is that there were 58 groups for one candidate and 3 for another that had 90% support. This suggests that someone may have sorted the ballots beforehand. The distribution of such high percentages for one candidate is not expected, and the ratio of 58 to 3 is particularly strange.

In Georgia, over 200,000 mail-in ballots were found to have been voted without being marked as returned. Around 96,000 of these ballots were never shown as received back by the county. This issue was seen across multiple areas, indicating a widespread problem. Additionally, some ballots were voted before being received back by the county, which is not supposed to happen. These irregularities suggest potential illegal votes being counted.

In Fulton County, it was discovered that 17,324 certified results had no ballot images. It is unclear if the images were deleted, replaced, or if the votes were created without evidence. This discrepancy resulted in an additional 13,000 votes for Biden and 4,000 votes for Trump, giving Biden a net advantage of 9,000 votes. The margin of victory in this county was 11,779 votes.

I estimated that around 80-90% of the ballots I observed were for Joe Biden, which seemed statistically impossible. In traditionally conservative neighborhoods like Cobb County, Georgia, we don't typically see a 100% Biden vote, yet the military ballots in those areas were between 80-90% Biden. Fulton County reported 93% of military ballots for Biden, which also seemed statistically impossible.

There were significant vote swings on election night between 9:11 PM and 9:32 PM. Joe Biden's votes fluctuated dramatically, dropping from 700,000 to 517,000, then rising to 871,000, while Trump's votes increased from 371,000 to 413,000 before plummeting to 292,000. This raises questions about how votes can decrease when they should only increase. While human and machine errors can occur, the scale of these discrepancies—like a 300,000 vote swing—seems excessive. In Pennsylvania, a 19,000 vote switch was noted, but many similar instances across the country prompt concerns about the integrity of the election process. How many errors are acceptable, and who is responsible for these discrepancies?

I estimated that around 80-90% of the ballots I saw were for Joe Biden, which seemed statistically impossible to me. Normally, the way military ballots are cast reflects the voting patterns of the areas they come from. In Cobb County, Georgia, where I live, we are traditionally conservative, so it was surprising to see such a high percentage of military ballots favoring Biden, ranging from 80% to 90%. Fulton County also reported a separate category for military ballots, with 93% of them going to Biden, which again seemed statistically impossible.

Around 80-90% of the votes seemed to be going to Joe Biden, which made me increasingly uneasy as the day went on. Every time I saw another batch of votes, it was all for Biden. This seemed statistically impossible to me.

Examples of statistical irregularities in election data reveal vote manipulation, particularly in Dodge County. Incremental vote counts for Donald Trump show discrepancies, with some votes appearing to switch or disappear. Notably, over 30,000 of Trump's votes vanished across Dodge, Daughtry, and Putnam counties. A specific instance in Bibb County, Georgia, illustrates this: Trump had 29,391 votes at one point, while Biden had 17,218. Shortly after, Trump's votes dropped to 17,218, and Biden's rose to 29,391, indicating a direct switch. Such manipulations can go unnoticed due to the time lag in state reporting, allowing discrepancies to appear neutral to observers.

In district 10 of Allegheny County, the absentee vote ratio between Biden and Trump was 17 to 1, with some precincts showing zero votes for Trump and hundreds for Biden. This is significant because the county as a whole had a ratio of 4 to 1 in favor of Biden. In addition, other districts in Allegheny voted 78% for Biden on average, while district 10 voted a staggering 93% for Biden. This resulted in over 23,000 votes for Biden and only 1,300 for Trump. These numbers are statistically unlikely and raise questions about the data. Furthermore, there were anomalies in both absentee and election day votes, with Trump's totals increasing and then decreasing by over 27,000 votes. The reason for these irregularities and the lack of explanation from officials is concerning.