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.

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.

In this video, the speaker shows two different batches of votes, scanner 5,162, batch 2,304, image 59 and scanner 5,162, batch 2,305, image 19. They point out that both batches have the same little tail and the word "Republican" written on them. The speaker mentions that there are a total of 62 images in the batch, but they didn't have a chance to go through all of them. They also mention that there are duplicate ballots in the batch, with one example being scanner 5,162, batch 2,305, image 92, which matches scanner 5,162, batch 234, image 33. The conclusion is that the entire batch has been scanned multiple times.

In this video, the speaker shows two different batches of votes, scanner 5,162, batch 234, image 59, and scanner 5,162, batch 235, image 19. They point out similarities between the two batches, such as the same little tail on a vote and the word "Republican" written in the same way. The speaker mentions that there are a total of 62 images in the batch, but they haven't gone through all of them yet. They don't know the exact numbers of the total batches, but they believe that the duplicates occurred. The speaker concludes that the entire batch of ballots has been scanned multiple times.

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.

I found that there were approximately 25,000 ballots in Maricopa County that were not printed from the official Dominion PDF ballot. These ballots had imperfections in the lines and circles, unlike the perfect PDF printing. The imperfections were consistent across all the ballots, suggesting they were not genuine. These 25,000 questionable ballots alone exceed Joe Biden's margin of victory by over double.

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.

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 this video, the speaker shows two different batches of votes with identical markings. They point out a tail-like mark on one ballot and explain that it appears on another as well. They also mention the presence of the word "Republican" on both ballots and a dot in the Fannie Willis. The speaker states that there are a total of 62 images in the batch, but they haven't reviewed all of them yet. They don't remember the exact numbers, but they mention that the batch numbers and scanner numbers match for some of the duplicate ballots. The conclusion is that the entire batch has been scanned multiple times.

In this video, the speaker shows two batches of votes with identical markings. They point out a little tail and the word "Republican" written on both. They mention that there are 62 images in total, but they only highlight a few. The speaker doesn't remember the exact numbers, but they mention that the batches were fairly close. They also mention specific image numbers that match in both batches. The conclusion is that there are duplicate ballots and the entire batch has been scanned 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.

In this video, the speaker shows two different batches of votes, both from scanner 5162. They point out that there are similarities between the ballots in each batch, such as a little tail and the word "Republican" written on them. The speaker mentions that there are a total of 62 images in the batch, but they only highlight a few obvious examples. They also mention that the total numbers of the batches were fairly close. The speaker concludes that these similarities indicate duplicate ballots, suggesting that the entire batch was scanned multiple times.

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.

Both ballots show identical markings, including a distinctive tail and the word "Republican." The speaker points out the same dot in each image. They have a total of 62 images showing duplicates, with one example being batch 5162. The speaker highlights specific instances where the same batch was scanned multiple times, revealing duplicate ballots.

During the examination, it was discovered that there were 61 groups of 200 ballots that had over 90% support for one candidate. This is unusual in a close race unless it is due to a specific geographical area. However, these groups were not specific to any particular area as they came from the central collection center for mail-in and early voting ballots. What's even more surprising is that there were 58 groups for one candidate and 3 for another that had 90% support. This suggests that someone may have sorted the ballots beforehand. The distribution of such high percentages for one candidate is not expected, and the ratio of 58 to 3 is particularly strange.

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.

There are two different batches of votes being discussed in the video. The speaker points out that there are similarities between the ballots in these batches, such as a little tail and the word "Republican" written on them. They mention that there are a total of 62 images in the batch, but they didn't have time to go through all of them. The speaker doesn't remember the exact numbers of the batches, but they mention that duplicate ballots were scanned multiple times.