reSee.it - Related Video Feed

When I started recording ballot numbers and names from mail-in ballots, I noticed they were in sequence, which is unusual. The envelopes had no date, just "November 0-2020." When I questioned this, I was told not to interfere. The ballots were all from the same street in Detroit, with similar signatures and no date stamp. They weren't in the system and were being entered manually. It seemed suspicious.

The speaker observed a broken chain of custody in the handling of mail-in ballots, drop box ballots, and Election Day USB card flash drives. They witnessed the voting machine warehouse supervisor uploading USB cards to the machines multiple times without being observed by the proper authorities. The speaker raised their concerns to the deputy sheriff and the Clerk of Elections, noting that the supervisor was carrying baggies and inserting USBs into the machines. This happened over 24 times.

In the 2020 Maricopa General Election, 120,867 ballots, or 6% of the total, were compromised through forced adjudication. This represents 9 times the deciding outcome of the election. The compromise was an intentional and avoidable paper and ink hack, where control over the ballot stock was necessary. The use of Sharpie pens, which were encouraged for the first time in history, combined with inferior ballot paper, caused bleed-through votes that confused the scanning machine. This allowed for extra votes to be counted, leading to potential election manipulation. The net effect of this hack in Maricopa County was approximately 120,867 compromised ballots.

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.

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.

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.

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 the Philadelphia Board of Elections, mail-in ballots were processed without any civilian oversight or observation. The ballots were handled in a large room called Hall F, with a fence separating the observers from the workers. The workers were spread out across the room, making it difficult for the observers to see what they were doing. There was no opportunity for the observers to challenge or inspect the mail-in ballots. This lack of oversight is a recurring issue.

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.

Disturbing breaches of protocol were observed during the election. USB vCard drives from voting machines were mixed together with cartridges and paper tapes, destroying any chance of forensic auditability and compromising the chain of custody. Despite objections, an individual plugged unsecured USB cards into vote counting computers, resulting in a sudden increase of 50,000 votes for Vice President Biden. Initially, 47 USB cards were missing, but that number has reportedly grown to 64. Additionally, a room containing 60,000 to 70,000 unopened mail-in ballots was discovered days after the vote count, with no knowledge of their origin or whereabouts. The absence of signed chain of custody documents raises questions about the source and destination of these ballots.

Melissa Carone, a freelance IT worker contracted by Dominion Voting Systems, witnessed numerous city workers running batches of ballots through tabulators without discarding them first. The tabulating machines would jam frequently, and the correct process would be to remove the problem ballot and rescan the batch. However, instead of discarding the batch, they were rescanning it multiple times, resulting in counting the same ballots and votes 9 to 10 times. Carone estimated that at least 30,000 ballots were counted multiple times.

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.

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.

The speaker believes that the rejected ballots were placed in a separate box to be later counted at the headquarters. The rejection happened at the voting center due to invalid ballots that wouldn't match any tabulator's program. The question arises if Maricopa County was contacted to clarify their processes. It is mentioned that the rejected ballots would be sent to central tabulation to be duplicated onto readable ballots and inserted into the system. However, there is no way for voters to confirm if this process was actually carried out, which raises concerns.

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 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.

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.

The election supervisor wants to vote for Jason Shaw. During adjudication, the supervisor states they want to vote for Biden, overriding the original marks on a ballot. The supervisor decides someone "don't deserve no votes" and chooses not to count votes on that ballot. The supervisor then declares another ballot should be blank. The supervisor admits to scanning the same batches of ballots repeatedly.

I was surprised to learn that there was no signature verification done for the ballots. I questioned how ballots without signatures were handled, and the response was they were just sent back out. This made me uncomfortable certifying the results.

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.

Disturbing breaches of protocol were observed during the election. USB card drives from voting machines were mishandled, destroying any possibility of a forensic audit and corrupting the chain of custody. Despite objections, the voting machine warehouse supervisor plugged unsecured USB cards into vote counting computers, resulting in a sudden increase of 50,000 votes for Vice President Biden. Initially, 47 USB cards were missing, but that number has now reportedly grown to 64. Additionally, 60,000 to 70,000 unopened mail-in ballots were discovered in back offices, with no knowledge of their origin or whereabouts. All signed paper chain of custody documents are missing, and attempts to recreate them have been made by Democrat election officials. The questions of where the ballots came from and where they went remain unanswered.

The speaker witnessed multiple instances where the Delaware County Board of Elections did not follow proper procedures during the election. They personally saw the voting machine warehouse supervisor uploading USB cards into the machines without being observed. The speaker raised concerns to the deputy sheriff and the clerk of elections, but their objections were ignored. It was later revealed that the warehouse manager usually inserts a few USBs into the machines after each election, but the number observed was unusually high. Currently, 47 USB cards are missing and cannot be located.

A person placed a table at 8:22 AM, under which 4 suitcases of ballots were found. The ballots were counted without witnesses present, raising concerns about the process. With machines capable of processing 3,000 ballots per hour, multiple machines ran for 2 hours without supervision, violating rules and statutes.