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 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 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.

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.

Ballots were allegedly found under a table in a video presented. The person who placed the table there is said to be the same person who cleared the area and claimed to stop counting. Four suitcases were seen being taken out from under the table. These separate ballots were counted when there were no witnesses present. The machines used can process 3,000 ballots per hour, and they were running for 2 hours. This raises concerns about the number of ballots processed without supervision. The video continues until around 1 a.m., showing the ongoing operation. The speaker asks if everyone has seen enough and proceeds to fast forward to 12:55 a.m.

A table was placed by a lady with blonde braids at 8:22 am. The same person who cleared the place later put the table there. Four suitcases were seen coming out from under the table, and one was pulled out by a gentleman in red. These separate ballots were counted when there were no witnesses and the place was cleared. Multiple machines were present for two hours, capable of processing 3,000 ballots per hour. It is unclear how many ballots went through the machines during that time without supervision.

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.

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.

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.

A table was placed by a lady with blonde braids at 8:22 am. The same person who cleared the place later put the table there. Four suitcases were seen coming out from under the table, and one was pulled out by a gentleman in red. These separate ballots were counted when there were no witnesses and the place was cleared. Multiple machines were present for two hours, capable of processing 3,000 ballots per hour. The lack of supervision and adherence to rules raises questions about the number of ballots processed during that time.

In the exchange, concerns are raised about mail-in ballots in Allegheny and Philadelphia counties and how they were counted. Speaker 0 notes that ballots were counted without observers, citing 682,770 ballots observed and asking about the 1,823,148 mailed-out ballots, contrasted with a final count showing 2,589,242 mail-in ballots. The core question is: what explains the roughly 700,000 mail-in ballots that “appeared from nowhere”? Speaker 1 responds that their cyber team uses white-hat hacking techniques to gather publicly available information from the secretary of state’s website, which has been updated as late as 11:16 this morning with provisional and mail-in ballots, though those numbers continue to change. He adds that the 2,500,000 figure is no longer on the website, and it has “just been taken off.” There is no annotation explaining why. Speaker 2 then describes an on-the-ground observation: a deputy sheriff, a senior law enforcement officer, was seen not being observed and walking in with baggies, with USBs being inserted into machines. The witness claims to have personally witnessed this 24 times, with additional witnesses including Democrat poll watchers. They were told by an attorney that every election leaves a couple of USB cards in the voting machines to be brought back by the warehouse manager, but this account is contradicted by law enforcement and other officials. The witness states that 47 USB cards are missing and “they’re nowhere to be found,” and that 32 to 30 cards uploaded were not present in the live vote update. The witness demanded timely live upload of vote results, which showed 50,000 votes; they assert those votes were for Vice President Biden, though they note that identifying who those votes were for should not matter to a computer scientist. Speaker 1 emphasizes that forensic evidence from the computers was not obtained: the procedure would involve turning off the computer, imaging the drive with BitLocker, under law enforcement observation, which would take about an hour for five machines. This forensic imaging was never performed, despite objections three weeks earlier. They later learned that virtually all chain-of-custody logs, yellow sheets, and forensic records in Delaware County were gone; a signing party attempted to recreate the logs with poll workers but was unsuccessful in recovering them all. The discussion concludes with a claim that there are 100,000 to 120,000 ballots, both mail-in and USB, in question, and that there is no remedy or “cure” within the local charter for certifying a presidential vote, leaving the speaker asserting that nobody could certify the vote in good conscience.

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.

I witnessed personally several egregious items. I was not allowed to perform my job, and from what I observed none of the GOP challengers were in accordance with Michigan laws. We were constantly prevented from getting close enough to see what was going on with respect to the ballots. Procedures were not being properly followed when we brought these to the attention of the supervisors. Our concerns were dismissed and ignored. We observed ballots being backdated from eleven four to eleven '2, and data being entered into the computers for these mail-in ballots. Poll workers were entering ballot information from new mail-in ballots including dates of birth of 01/01/1900 into the electronic poll books and processing those ballots for tabulation. The information was not entered wasn't in either the electronic poll book or the paper supplement book prior to that. There's been, lots and lots of reports after the election counting process. First of all, I did email a copy of what I'm reading from to each of Republican senators and the House of Representative members. So I'd be happy to provide this to you. Dead people were voting. I sent a website to that effect, and the list that they had up to that date was 17,327 randomly checked Michigan voters that were registered for voting and were above the age of 80. Every name on this list has voted in the twenty twenty election check for yourself and has also been found in one or more of the obituaries online. This is the most important election in my lifetime, and I think the most important election in the history of our republic. Every legislator, whether seated in the house or the senate, whether democrat or republican, took an oath to defend The US and state constitutions of, The US and Michigan against enemies both foreign and domestic. Time is of the essence and now is the time to fulfill that oath. Despite what the media is telling everyone, there are mountains of evidence that voter fraud occurred on a massive scale, the likes of which we've never witnessed in the country. Thirty seconds. For those

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.

A table was placed by a lady with blonde braids at 8:22 am. The same person who cleared the area later put the table there. Four suitcases were seen coming out from under the table. A man in red pulled out one of the ballots. These separate ballots were counted when there were no witnesses. The machines can process 3,000 ballots per hour, and they were there for 2 hours without supervision. The number of ballots processed during that time is unclear.

There is a significant issue with the recount process I witnessed firsthand. During the first recount, many mail-in ballots appeared to be printed rather than marked by hand. I was present in Fulton County at the Georgia World Congress Center and documented this with photographs. On the second day of the recount, most monitors left, and only one monitor was allowed for every ten tables. At noon on Sunday, a table was set up in a lunch area, away from security cameras, where ballots were counted unsupervised. I have evidence, including video and photographs, to support these claims.

This is the duplication room. I observed the preparation of a new ballot because the original was soiled and wouldn't go through the tabulators. I read a Trump Republican ballot, and when it was entered, the system defaulted to a Biden Democratic ballot. We reported this to supervisors, and others confirmed they witnessed similar issues. We were not informed of any corrective actions taken. The next day, the supervisor reprimanded me for raising concerns about the machines, and I was told I could not discuss the situation. Many were threatened with being removed from the room if they spoke up. I feel it is my duty to share the truth.

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.

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.

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.

Jackie Pick, speaking as a volunteer and attorney not acting as counsel in this case, presented what she said is evidence from State Farm Arena in Fulton County concerning fraud or misrepresentation. She described the scene as a single large room where absentee and military ballots are tabulated on election day, with videotape from morning through close of polls. She stated that two Republican field organizers were sent as observers but were not allowed to observe meaningfully. They were “roped off with the press” in a roped-off area. She explained the timeline: the observers were to arrive around 08:00 to watch the tabulation of absentee and military ballots; about 10:00, a person working the polls allegedly told everyone in the room to leave because they were going to stop counting and would return at 08:30 in the morning. At approximately 10:00, workers remained, and the press and Republican observers left, but four people stayed behind and continued counting and tabulating well into the night, until about 10:25–10:30. The observers allegedly learned from a news crew that counting had continued after they had been told to leave. The observers returned to State Farm Arena around 01:00 in the morning and confirmed that people had left in contravention of the supervisors’ instructions. The video frames show the room becoming a ghost town between 10:25 and 10:37 as those who stayed behind were described as continuing work after the observers and press had left. The four people who remained behind were described as the lady in purple, two women in yellow (near the scanners), and the woman with blonde braids who had earlier instructed everyone to leave and stop counting. Pick asserted these four stayed behind to operate scanners once the area was clear of witnesses. She directed attention to the act of pulling ballots out from underneath a table, with the same blonde-braided woman having placed a table at 08:22 a.m. The video allegedly shows four suitcases of ballots being moved from under the table, prompting questions about the origin and chain of custody of those ballots, and why counting occurred only when the room was unsupervised. Her team calculated the possible volume: with three scanners processing about 3,000 ballots per hour over two hours, roughly 18,000 ballots could have been scanned during that unsupervised period. They noted six people involved in moving ballots in and out (the four workers plus two others), suggesting a prolonged period of unsupervised tabulation until about 12:55 a.m., after which the witnesses left again. The witnesses say counting resumed around five minutes before their return around 01:40–01:45. During the hearing, respondents questioned whether a water leak or water main break occurred and whether it affected operations; officials described conflicting accounts, with some asserting the leak did not disrupt work and others noting a toilet leak in some testimony. There were claims that a monitor was on-site throughout the process, which Fulton County officials reportedly disputed, stating the video had not been viewed by all parties. Additional questions from senators covered: who operates the cameras (the State Farm Arena) and whether the footage is secured and accessible; whether the scanners maintain real-time logs; and whether the video presents new information not previously reviewed by election authorities. The presenter emphasized the need for further hours of review to fully assess the frames and warrants.

Speaker 0 states that 682,770 ballots in Allegheny County and Philadelphia were counted without observation. Speaker 0 questions the discrepancy between the 1,823,148 mailed ballots sent out and the final count of 2,542,242 mail-in ballots, asking how to account for the 700,000 mail-in ballots that "appeared from nowhere." Speaker 1 says their cyber team uses white hat hacking techniques and gathers publicly available information from the Secretary of State's website, which is continually updated with provisional and mail-in ballot information. Speaker 1 notes that the 2,500,000 number is no longer on the website. Speaker 0 asks if there is any explanation for why it was taken off, and Speaker 1 responds that there are no annotations.

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.