reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker questions the evidence presented by elections officials, stating that it has been repeatedly debunked. They suggest inviting the officials back in to provide further evidence. Senator Tillery agrees with the suggestion.

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.

During the discussion, Speaker 1 mentions an interesting observation regarding the voter rolls. They found that 11,326 individuals who were not listed on the November 7th version of the voter rolls appeared on the December 4th version, despite showing as having voted in the recent election. Speaker 0 seeks an explanation for this discrepancy, emphasizing that they are not implying fraud but simply seeking answers. Speaker 1 admits they cannot think of a logical explanation and suggests reaching out to the county for clarification. The conversation ends there.

The transcript discusses concerns about election irregularities and voting machines. One speaker claims a voting machine subtracted votes, displaying a negative number. Another speaker states that such subtraction cannot occur accidentally and that someone consciously tried to steal votes. A third speaker says that when they press the button next to their name, another person's name appears on the display, questioning the accuracy of the vote count. Another speaker asserts that the machines are working correctly, recording votes accurately, and that the results will be accurate and reliable. One speaker expresses concern about private corporations controlling the voting system and calls for a formal debate about election irregularities, warning that the democracy and republic are at risk.

The speaker explains that when a ballot jams in the tabulating machines, an error message appears with the options to discard or recount. However, instead of following the correct procedure of discarding the entire batch and rescanning the already tabulated ones, they were repeatedly rescanning the jammed ballots without discarding them. This led to the ballots being counted 8 to 10 times, indicating a lack of understanding and confusion among the individuals involved.

Speaker 0: The election was stolen. A graph shows people who worked for ES&S, Hart, Dominion Voting Systems, ClearBallot, and Smartmatic, recycling through companies. People who worked at Dominion Voting Systems are entering the political sphere and taking over election offices; one county in Texas, after hiring someone who worked for Dominion, went blue for the first time. The speaker walks through information: Dominion using “Serbian technology with Chinese characteristics.” Huawei Bank is involved; there’s no public board saying Bank of China funds anything, but research on Roaming Networks—a relatively unknown Serbian company until 2013—shows it signed a value-added contract with Huawei Bank. Huawei is “the Bank of China.” Roaming Networks built ICT infrastructure and data centers in Serbia, with owner Nenad Kovac identified as the enterprise partner. Some Roaming Networks information may come off their site after this presentation. Dominion Voting Systems has a corporate office in Serbia; a screenshot of the office and a developer on their site is noted. A Serbian legislative leader said, “I know Dominion Voting Systems back in November. They have an office here.” Dominion started rapidly removing Serbian coders from their site/LinkedIn. Code is built in Serbia for a system used in the United States, using infrastructure funded by China, not just China but the Bank of China. A slide discusses Dominion’s enterprise partnership with Huawei, added to the restricted list on 05/16/2019. Roaming Networks references show Dominion Voting Systems using a pure flash storage solution in Dominion’s data center. A photo of Sacramento shows Dominion hardware coming from China, with a bill of lading from a Chinese supplier to Dominion’s McKinney, Texas office. Testing and approval of Dominion hardware show similarities with Smartmatic; the same hardware with different branding. They claim a “tail” behind the scenes—evidence of connections among ES&S, Hart, Dominion, ClearBallot, Smartmatic, with people cycling through these companies. People who once worked at Dominion are now entering election offices; in Texas, a county that hired a former Dominion employee “went blue” by accident with ES&S involved. The speaker calls out Gina Griswold for commenting on Tina Peters and Mesa, and Matt Crane’s role as Arapahoe County clerk and recorder, now head of the County Clerks Association; Crane’s wife previously worked for Dominion and Sequoia Voting Systems. The speaker asserts a public breach of trust requires an audit; if there’s nothing to hide, audits should restore trust. They argue, whether Dominion is the bad actor or not, removal of logs, altering code, and a “trusted build” are problematic, and emphasize the need for audits and investigations to restore trust in elections. Speaker 1: Indicators: a senior Dominion vice president’s name appears on patents; a software engineer involved in the Wayne County, Michigan tabulation center is connected to the software. Coincidences accumulate, suggesting there is a preponderance of evidence with affidavits across the country. The speaker asks which computer produced certain files analyzed yesterday; whether it came from the central count or precincts. Speaker 0: Answers with a non-answer, noting they imaged the main EMS and the tabulation system; servers in the county coordinate precinct information and house audit reports, cast vote reports, error reports, adjudication reports, and access logs. Thumb drives can contaminate the county and state systems if connected to a machine; it’s not unique to Dominion or voting systems but a general risk. They emphasize avoiding white noise and focusing on facts: Dominion is in Serbia; Huawei Bank funds the enterprise partnership and Serbia-based data centers; code is written in Serbia; imaging shows fingerprints of this. They call for audits, note deviations in Georgia (ballots appearing identical in different batches, a shredder truck before January 20 in Georgia, and a leaky arena water claim later proven to be a leaky toilet), and point to media silence. They argue against accepting the gold standard claim and highlight perceived connections to Soros-funded groups. They stress deviations in state and county behavior, urge audits, and compare the election system to a serial killer—unacceptable to let foreign systems run it. Speaker 2: Adds that with 100 indicators, a pattern emerges; reiterates the need to examine which files came from which computer, and questions the integrity of the central count. Speaker 3: Notes the risk of a non-internet-connected thumb drive introducing malware; emphasizes auditing all machines for that reason.

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.

The speaker states that the data does not align with normal legal voting processes and lacks consistency. They mention that the certified data, which is also reported by the New York Times and networks, shows negative errors and fraudulent votes. They suggest that either the secretary of state's office is certifying flawed results or someone is providing them with incorrect information. They emphasize that the certified votes for Georgia contain negative swings and decrements, which are errors and do not accurately represent the state's voters. No blame is assigned, but the focus is on highlighting the discrepancies in the certification process.

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.

The speaker expresses disbelief that an election could be won by a single vote. They highlight the absurdity of the situation, noting the initial vote count was 44-35 in favor of the liberal party. The speaker finds it bizarre that the election result hinges on one vote. They then mention a woman named Emmanuel, who claims Elections Canada didn't count her vote due to an incorrect address. The speaker questions how, out of all the people in Turbine, Emmanuel, who allegedly voted for the block, was the only one whose vote couldn't be found.

The speaker discusses an incident where there were errors in the vote count for Biden and Trump. They explain that the voting machine generated a high number of errors, which were then sent for adjudication. The rate of ballots needing adjudication was 68%, much higher than the federal allowable rate of 1 in 125,000. The speaker suggests that this program is designed to generate errors and manipulate votes. They also mention that on November 4th, all system files related to adjudication were deleted. This is seen as a significant issue.

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 speaker questions whether purging the 2020 election database in February is a standard practice for all elections. The response is uncertain, but they promise to provide an answer. The speaker further asks why data from previous elections was still present on the databases. Again, there is no clear answer, but they assure the congressman that they will find out. The chairman mentions limited server space as a reason for making room for new election data. The speaker raises concerns about the credibility of the recorder, who had criticized Adrian Fontes, the person in charge of the 2020 election. The speaker clarifies that they had a bipartisan board overseeing the election to ensure fairness.

An individual working for Elections Canada in Durham region claims that no votes from that region had been counted when CTV declared the Liberals the winners. The individual's job was to ensure that sealed packages and documentation from polling stations were in order before tabulation. They state that no votes from Pickering, Ajax, Whitby, Oshawa, and Uxbridge had been brought to the office to be counted. The individual questions how CTV and subsequently CBC could declare the Liberals as winners without any votes counted from Durham region. They call for an investigation, stating that something is not right.

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.

A scanner can only scan one dollar per second, but there are 4,000 ballots with the exact same time stamp of November 5th at 11:19:40. This suggests that these ballots may have been inserted and cannot be authenticated. The main question is whether this time stamp, which shows an unbelievable speed of scanning, is from the EMS system and not something we created.

The speaker questions Monsieur Darmanin about the removal of citizen control over elections and the difficulties in verifying the results. They mention that the annexation of proxy lists to the voting records has been eliminated, making it technically impossible to verify the elections. They highlight instances of dishonesty and errors in previous elections and ask how the government plans to address these issues in the upcoming European elections.

Speaker 0 asked Speaker 1 to explain what they wanted to get from the board if they had been allowed to continue. Speaker 1 mentioned that since 2019, voters have no way of knowing if their vote was counted properly because they can't read the QR code. Even if the words on the ballot match their vote, the QR code remains unreadable. Speaker 1 believes the board panicked when they were about to discuss this issue.

An individual who was supposed to be working for Elections Canada in Durham region states that no votes from that region had been counted when CTV declared the Liberals the winners. The job entailed ensuring that all packages were sealed and documentation was in order after votes were brought to the office from each polling station, so votes could be tabulated and counted. According to the speaker, not a single vote in Durham region had been brought to the office or counted. The speaker questions how CTV and then CBC could declare the Liberals as winners when votes from a large area east of the GTA, including Pickering, Ajax, Whippy, Oshawa, Uckbridge, and Uxbridge, had not yet been counted. The speaker believes this situation "reeks" and warrants investigation.

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.

Judicial recounts are normal, but the number of seat flips in the 2025 election is unusual. In 2011 there was one flip, in 2015 there were zero, and in 2021 there was one. In 2025, a number of seats have flipped to the Liberal party. This observation is not due to malicious intent or outside influence. The speaker is simply noticing a trend and a flaw. The speaker is calling on Elections Canada to improve voter education or to ensure correct postal codes on mail-in ballots. The speaker feels that the number of flips is weird.

The speaker discusses a situation where an election result hinged on a single vote, which they find statistically improbable. They mention a previously uncounted vote that was discovered, potentially creating a tie or necessitating a recount. The speaker raises concerns about 800 canceled votes and questions the criteria and oversight involved in rejecting votes. They call for transparency and scrutiny of every rejected vote, suggesting potential errors or biases in the process. The speaker questions Elections Canada and whether they will review every single thing. They express the opinion that winning by one vote in this scenario suggests possible manipulation, implying someone may have arbitrarily decided the outcome.

The speaker highlights that the number of misfeeds in the voting system is much higher than the federal standard of one out of 500. They mention that the insertion errors were a significant issue throughout Election Day, contrary to reports claiming it was a minor problem. The system log files reveal that there were consistently over 7,000 ballot insertion failures every 30 minutes from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m., with some intervals exceeding 8,000 errors. The problem persisted throughout the day despite technicians attempting to fix it.

An individual working for Elections Canada in Durham region claims that no votes from that region had been counted when CTV declared the Liberals the winners. The individual's job was to ensure that sealed packages and documentation from polling stations were in order before tabulation. They state that no votes from Pickering, Ajax, Whitby, Oshawa, or Uxbridge had arrived at the office. Following CTV's declaration, CBC also reported the Liberals as winners. The individual believes this situation is suspicious and warrants investigation.