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 noticed irregularities with the absentee ballots. The ballot numbers were in sequence, which is unusual for mailed-in ballots. The speaker also discovered that the envelopes lacked a date and the ballots were all from the same area. The signatures were similar, and there were no date stamps. Additionally, the ballots were not showing up in the system and had to be entered manually. When the speaker questioned these issues, they were met with resistance from the supervisor. Despite wanting to stay in the room, the speaker chose not to challenge further.

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.

The speaker discusses the issue of bleed through on ballots and its potential impact on voting. They mention that if the bubbles on the ballot bleed through, it can cause an overvote or result in voting for a different candidate than intended. They refer to a newsletter from Maricopa County stating that they use VoteSecure paper, which is thick and has a special coating to prevent bleed through. However, the speaker points out that they have observed bleed through on actual ballots, which raises concerns. They mention the need for further analysis to determine the extent of the impact on votes. The second speaker seeks clarification and confirms that Maricopa County's newsletter stated they only use secure paper that does not allow bleed through. The first speaker affirms this and adds that paper experts have confirmed the thickness of the paper should prevent bleed through, but they have observed thin paper stock being used on Election Day.

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.

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 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.

In this video, the speaker shows two different batches of votes with identical markings. They point out a little tail that appears on both batches, as well as the word "Republican" written in the same way. The speaker mentions that there are a total of 62 images in the batch, but they didn't have time to go through all of them. They highlight one specific image with a little bubble and mention the batch numbers that match. The conclusion is that there are duplicate ballots in the entire batch that have been scanned multiple times.

An observer in the duplication room witnessed the preparation of a new ballot because the original was soiled. The observer read a Trump Republican ballot to their Democratic partner. When the partner entered it into the system, the ballot defaulted to a Biden Democratic ballot on the screen. This was reported to supervisors, and others claimed to have witnessed the same manipulation. No corrective action was communicated. The next day, the observer was scolded for saying the machines were not working correctly and was told not to discuss anything. Many people were threatened with being removed from the room or not being allowed to work there again if they spoke out. The observer believes it is their duty to speak the truth.

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 describes irregularities observed in absentee/mail-in ballots. They claim that the ballot numbers and the last names on the ballots were in sequence, which should not happen with mail-in ballots because those ballots are supposed to arrive at different times and cannot be sequential like 2-2-3-2 next to 2-2-3-3. This pattern triggered the speaker’s concern, leading them to think something was wrong. The speaker states they began noticing that the numbers were almost adjacent to each other, with one hovering around the middle. This prompted them to raise questions about the process. They then asked the supervisor for clarification, but the supervisor reacted angrily, saying, “you’re not letting us do our job. You’re disturbing us.” Feeling hesitant to push the issue further for fear of being kicked out and wanting to stay in the room due to a lack of other observers, the speaker chose not to challenge the process more than they already had. They allege that the sequence of ballot numbers came from the same area, specifically Goddard Street in Downtown Detroit, and that the signatures on those ballots were all alike. The speaker notes several additional anomalies: envelopes had no date stamp, only the word “November 2020” without a more specific date, and there was no second or third numbering visible. They observed that none of these ballots were coming up in the voting system; instead, they were being entered manually. The speaker claims that the poll book or the system would not reflect these details, implying that the ballots were processed outside the normal electronic recordkeeping. In summary, the speaker alleges a pattern of sequential ballot numbers and similar signatures associated with absentee ballots from a single street area, envelopes without proper dating, and manual entry into the system rather than through standard digital processing, with the supervisor resisting questions about these irregularities.

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.

In the duplication room, the speaker and their partner observed a new ballot being prepared because the original one was damaged. They read a Trump Republican ballot, but it automatically changed to a Biden Democratic ballot on the screen. They reported this manipulation to the supervisors, but were not informed of any corrective action. The next day, the speaker was scolded by a supervisor for questioning the machines. They were told not to discuss the issue, as others had been threatened with suppression and removal from the room. The speaker believes it is their duty to speak the truth.

The speaker observed that when people received Republican straight ticket ballots, they often ignored them or circled Donald Trump's name and put them back in the envelope. The speaker noticed USPS boxes filled with these ballots on the floor. They questioned the legitimacy of the process, as it seemed impossible to count all the votes accurately. The speaker mentioned that only a small number of ballots were counted at a time, with each pile containing no more than five ballots. They expressed concern about the removal of many Trump vote ballots.

Approximately 25,000 ballots were not created from the PDF. The PDF files used for preprinted and vote center ballots are similar, with minor differences in wording. The same configuration and layout are used, but some areas may have extra words. The speaker used an acetate overlay to mark breaks in the circle lines on the computer screen, which were consistent across multiple ballots. This indicates that the anomalies were not due to poor printing but rather degradation of the image over time. The anomalies included breaks in lines, unusual formations of characters, and jagged vertical and horizontal lines. These anomalies were found in many ballots, suggesting a consistent printing issue. The degraded print quality was observed in early ballots as well.

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.

The speaker shares their experience with the election process, mentioning receiving four notes with incorrect dates. They describe witnessing three individuals entering ballots into the verified voter system, and one person, later identified as Jesse Jacobs, showing them a signature on a laptop screen that didn't match the signature on the ballot. The speaker also claims to have seen stacks of 50 ballots being put through tabulators multiple times. They mention the supervisors keeping them at a distance from the tabulators and not allowing them to get closer. The speaker notes that only Biden's name was selected on duplicated military ballots, with no down-ballot selections for Trump. They express their belief that the election was fraudulent.

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.

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.

Key points from the testimonies: - There is a contention that ballots were run through the counting process multiple times, possibly thousands, with Speaker 0 noting statements that ballots could have been counted up to 30,000 times. When examining the poll book and comparing it to the votes cast, it is asked whether the numbers would align with the total votes from Detroit. - Speaker 2 asserts that the poll book is "completely off," with Speaker 3 estimating an error of over 100,000 in the poll book. A Downriver resident explains arriving at 3:40 a.m. due to 38,000 ballots that were “ride here” and “sitting over there and getting counted,” framing this as an eye-opening revelation about hypocrisy. - Security measures are described as unusual: Speaker 3 notes that windows are being taped up so challengers cannot see in, or out, raising questions about transparency. - Speaker 4 describes observing that none of the names on ballots were being scanned from the ballots into electronic poll books; instead, names appeared only on supplemental sheets. They note electronic poll books were updated on Sunday, November 1, implying that thousands of new ballots would have had to be registered on November 2 or 3. The speaker began writing down names after ballots were scanned but was obstructed by five individuals, including a poll worker, a supervisor, an uncredentialed person, a Democrat challenger, and a top ABCB leader, according to their affidavit. The speaker questions whether 30,000 to 40,000 new voters could have been legally signed up in two days. - Speaker 5 reports ballots that do not belong to anybody and do not appear in voter registration. They describe ballots with no names attached and note attempts to reevaluate them by placing them in a box. Multiple ballots show several different numbers. - Speaker 6 explains that, on the tables, ballots are accompanied by a computer screen showing which ballot it is. Sometimes a ballot has no name, but the registration file shows a person born in 1921 registered long before that year (1900), suggesting anomalies. The speaker asks what is wrong with being born in 1921, while Speaker 5 emphasizes a registration dating to 1900. - Speaker 7 lists egregious items: not allowed to perform duties, GOP challengers obstructed, procedures not followed, backdating ballots from November 4 to November 2, and data entered into computers for mail-in ballots with dates of birth like 01/01/1900, absent from electronic poll books or paper supplement books prior to that. They claim dead people were voting and reference a list of 17,327 Michigan voters over 80 who voted in 2020 and were found in obituaries online. This speaker calls the election described as the most important in their lifetime and in the republic’s history. - Representative Johnson is also mentioned, with a prompt to question the turnout rate, hinting at a purported turnout of 120%. Overall, the testimonies allege discrepancies between poll books and ballots, improper registration, backdated or misdated ballots, ballots lacking identifying information, obstructions to challengers, and possible participation of non-existent or deceased voters, culminating in claims of a highly irregular election process.

I noticed that the ballot numbers and last names on the absentee and mail-in ballots were in sequence, which is unusual because these ballots should come in different numbers. This raised my suspicion. I asked about the date on the envelopes, but there was only November 0, 2020, with no second number. When I questioned this, the supervisors became angry and accused me of disrupting their work. I didn't want to be kicked out, so I didn't challenge anything further. The ballot numbers were all from the same area, with similar signatures, and there was no date stamp after 0. None of these ballots were showing up in the system and were being manually entered, even though they knew these details wouldn't be in the poll book or system.

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.

In the duplication room, the speaker witnessed a new ballot being prepared because the original one was damaged. However, when a Trump Republican ballot was entered into the system, it automatically switched to a Biden Democratic ballot. The speaker reported this manipulation to the supervisors, but it is unclear if any action was taken. The next day, the speaker was scolded by a supervisor for questioning the machines' accuracy and was warned not to discuss the issue. The speaker believes it is their duty to speak the truth.

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.

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.