reSee.it - Related Video Feed

I was asked to handle some mysterious crates, but I wasn't allowed to know what was inside. However, I received a smaller parcel with a letter containing names and numbers, which turned out to be the names of refugees. Inside the smaller box were keys with corresponding numbers. I went to the secure area where the crates were stored and used two keys to open two of them. In one crate, I found AK47 machine guns, while the other crate contained a significant amount of ammunition. It was enough to potentially start a new war.

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.

I worked with around 80 coworkers in two shifts at the election headquarters. We were all instructed to falsify the ballot package dates by different supervisors. The false dates were entered into the system as the mailing date. This happened daily starting on September 22nd. The supervisors would give us a different date each day, sometimes using the same date consecutively. It was never the correct date, always prior to the actual preparation date.

A person was questioned about their destination while standing near the curb. They became anxious and explained that they were transporting blank ballots to a satellite location approximately 7 miles away. When asked why the ballots were not in a container, the person admitted that it was their fifth trip of the day and they had been delivering them in this manner.

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.

The speakers discussed issues with scanning envelopes due to jamming in the printer. They mentioned problems with the BlueCrest machine for signature verification. The request for scanned images of outer envelopes from November 2020 was not fulfilled. The discussion then shifted to obtaining signature exemplars and reference images for voters, which would require checking multiple databases for 860,000 voters. The process of finding signatures in the databases was explained in detail. The conversation also touched on absentee ballot application forms.

The speaker witnessed 24 large cardboard containers of ballots being loaded onto their trailer. They noticed that the envelopes had handwritten return addresses and one was marked as registered mail. The speaker was initially not concerned about it but found it strange when they were made to wait for six hours in Harrisburg without being allowed to unload. They were then instructed to drive to Lancaster without unloading in Harrisburg, which didn't make sense to them. The transportation supervisor refused to give them a ticket or a late slip. The next day, the speaker discovered that their trailer was missing. They found it unusual and decided to speak up about the situation.

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.

People come in from what I can sell consider well heeled, and say, well, you know, I know if I send it down there, you figure out where it was. Well, what we could be. I think I was from, a legal standpoint. If it, like, legally has to be attached to it. Or if you just need to be with it so you know which tapes came from which precinct and belong to which return sheet. I think it's a combination of both but legally you have to have it. The issues that we had when we did the reconciliation is that we were to reconcile the number of people voted with the yellow books and then with the return to balance. I mean, we haven't even talked about reconciling the used and unused balance and I presume that's something we can do down the road but it would it was it was not easy and these poor people came in there and they were sweating bullets because they all thought they were going to weapon cuffs. It's it has to be stressed that that tape has to be attached.

A woman is seen delivering a stack of ballots. Someone in a car hands her another ballot to add to the stack. The woman then returns to her car with the stack of ballots and allegedly realizes they are not signed. The video purportedly shows her signing each ballot individually inside the vehicle, placing them on the dashboard one by one. The footage is described as clear, with a close-up showing the woman at the Dropbox.

I'm at an outside meeting and need you to deliver evidence to someone. Do you have a card? Yes, I do. Just give it to him. We want confirmation that he received it. Thank you. You're welcome. Have a great day. Thank you, you too.

During the Arizona audit, Maricopa County made it clear that signature verification was off-limits. However, it's easy to understand why they didn't want us to examine the signatures because, in reality, they don't match.

We discussed the handling and identification of taped materials used in an election process. One speaker noted that visitors described as “well-heeled” came in and asked about sending a van to figure out where a given tape originated, indicating a concern with tracing the source of materials. The other speaker added that there is a legal requirement for tapes to be attached to the relevant records, and questioned whether tapes also need to be physically associated with the correct precinct and the corresponding return sheet. The speakers agreed that both the legal attachment and proper tagging are important, with one saying it’s a combination of both, but that legally the attachment is mandatory. They described reconciliation issues they faced: trying to reconcile the number of people who voted with the yellow books and with the return balance. They also mentioned the idea of reconciling the used and unused balance, noting it as a possible task for the future but not easily accomplished at the time. The discussion highlighted that the presence and proper attachment of the tape were stressful for the staff, with some staff “sweating bullets” because they feared potential consequences or accusations. The emphasis was that the tape must be attached to ensure proper traceability and accountability.

A woman is seen delivering a stack of unsigned ballots. A person in a car hands her a ballot to put in the ballot box. Realizing the ballots are unsigned, she signs each one individually in her car and places them on the dashboard. The video footage is clear and shows her going to the dropbox.

In Downtown Detroit at the TCF Center, a video discussion describes what a caller says happened during ballot processing. The account asserts that after precincts had counted ballots and were ready to close, three vehicles—a van, a Chrysler 300, and a Ferrari—arrived at about 4:00 a.m. with a claimed 130,000 ballots. The claim is that every one of these ballots were Biden ballots that had not been delivered to the precinct before its cutoff, constituting a “big irregularity” and suggesting voter fraud. The speakers say this is being contested by the president in a lawsuit for Michigan, with people who allegedly witnessed the event. Speaker 1 adds that back rooms at the facility enabled cars to drive in through a garage door, and that ballots appeared between 10:30 p.m. and 3:30 a.m. Approximately 38,000 ballots were said to have arrived in that window, with a reported count of 61 ballots described as being in USPS boxes. The boxes were not necessarily USPS-delivered; a white van with the city clerk’s emblem appeared to be delivering them, bearing the name Janice Winfrey and related tagline. The implication is that ballots arrived in an unverified, potentially improper manner. Speaker 2 notes possible additional vehicles present at the time and mentions that a mini panel truck with Detroit Elections Bureau regalia and a vehicle ID number was observed, with other people recording license plate information. The lack of verifiable chain of custody is emphasized: there was no confirmed Republican/Democrat presence during transfer, and seals on ballots were not verified. The speaker contrasts this with a suburbs experience where ballots were methodically processed, sealed, and tracked, implying Detroit’s process lacked similar controls. Speaker 3 explains that Gateway Pundit obtained video of the event after a delay, and that local media personnel claimed the event did not occur. The video shows an escort car and a lead car delivering items inside the facility, with the escort car reportedly from Pennsylvania and possibly a rental. The Michigan group, Patty’s group, counted drop-box ballots and reported about 1,340 to 1,400 ballots dropped in Detroit over the last two days. In contrast, after the shutdown, officials allegedly claimed 16,000 ballots were dropped in, with the question of where those additional ballots originated. Speaker 4 reinforces the Michigan group’s tally of roughly 1,340–1,400 ballots from drop boxes in Detroit in the adjacent period and points to the discrepancy between that count and the 16,000 ballots later cited, noting the eight-hour gap after the official closing time and the two separate deliveries to the TCF Center. The overarching claim is that these events indicate irregularities in ballot handling and raise questions about the source and legitimacy of the large ballot influx.

Inside the Governor's Office, they discuss boxes and delivery: 'they want us to take them to Butch Miller to Jones and the other one that there anybody that it's addressed to is who they want us to deliver the boxes to, but nobody's up on the Third Floor.' Earlier, 'We did get what the old Third Floor and drop.' and 'He's not leaving.' A remark about timing and a deposit follows: 'I think we should be. I don't think we should get a clean chance. I'm trying to call deposit Alright. Is that.' Another speaker adds: 'everybody here? It's back in the box. In the old box, I guess. Right. Here.'

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 asks if the person is aware that the outer envelope of a ballot must have the date, time, and signature of the town clerk. The person admits they were not aware. The speaker then asks if the person instructed their absentee ballot moderator about this rule, to which the person responds that they went over the manual but did not specifically mention the signature requirement. The speaker shows an example of an envelope without a signature and asks if it should have been counted. The person objects, but the speaker clarifies that they were in charge of counting the ballots. The person admits they did not discuss the signature requirement with the moderator. The speaker asks if the person's office ever checked for the clerk's signature on the envelopes, to which the person says it never came up in their training.

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 worked with around 80 coworkers who were instructed to backdate ballot packages at the election headquarters. Different false dates were used each day, totaling about 10,000 false documents created per day for approximately 10 days. Multiple supervisors were involved in giving instructions. The false dates were entered into the system as the mailing date.

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.

The speaker asks if the person is aware that the outer envelope of a ballot must have the date, time, and signature of the town clerk. The person admits they were not aware of this. The speaker then questions if the person instructed the absentee ballot moderator about this rule, to which the person says they did not. The speaker shows examples of envelopes with and without the clerk's signature, and asks if the one without should have been counted. The person agrees that it should not have been counted. The speaker asks if the person ever checked for the clerk's signature on envelopes, and the person says it never came up in their training.

The discussion covered the importance of tape attachment to election materials. Speaker 0 recounts that well-heeled individuals insisted on knowing exactly where a van was going and what it contained, indicating concerns about tracking the contents and destination. Speaker 1 adds that legally the tape must be attached to indicate which tapes came from which precinct and belong to which return sheet, and whether it needs to be attached depends on legal requirements. The two speakers agree that there is a combination of legal necessity and practical need for proper labeling. The main reconciliation challenge described is aligning the number of people voted with the yellow books and with the return to balance. Speaker 0 mentions that reconciling the used and unused balance is something that could be addressed later, but it is not easy. Both speakers emphasize the stress on those handling the process, noting that “these poor people” came in sweating bullets because they feared they were going to weapon cuffs. The need to attach the tape is stressed as a crucial requirement.