Dr. Andrew Paquette - The Science of Election Rigging (Pt. 1 of 2) - PRE-RELEASE
03:14:45 Share

Greetings from the North, citizens of Earth, welcome.

We are in election season and I'd be remiss not to contribute a couple of cents to that process, partly to help clean up the election system and partly because there are paradigm shifts.

shifting issues in that field, at least as far as the majority of people is concerned. See, we have touched this subject matter before. Many years ago, I had on one of the foremost specialists

On this, Dr. Bob Fitrakis and the program is called How All US Elections Are Rigged. Now, unfortunately, it didn't prove to be a very popular episode, but I've never made any shows based on popularity. If I did, this...

Program would have been 10 times bigger than it is today. Now, I have to pursue the different threads that I sincerely choose to for various reasons and...

In that episode we made with Dr. Fitrakis, he went through the main ways that elections in America are rigged. And although one can only guesstimate, if you total all the different ways they have to tilt it, it will sway probably as much as 10%, especially now that

that we have the revelations from Dr. Epstein, who has uncovered a completely new way where Google actually is one of the biggest perpetrators of election rigging.

And I'm scrambling to get out that episode. That's right, I've had Professor Epstein on to cover this in an episode called What You Should Know About Google. Hopefully, when you listen to this, it's already out or it's coming out soon, because I'm really trying to get out as many of my relevant episodes as I can in time before the election. But as always, we're behind here.

We have, as I'm speaking, maybe 20, 25 episodes in the pipeline. I really need an editor to bail me out here. And in some cases, some episodes are a year or two behind schedule. See, I don't release. It's not like we release chronologically compared to when they were recorded. No, we try to balance in terms of different kinds of subject fields and topics.

In this case, relevance. So, yeah, I'm trying to get out the episode What You Should Know About Google with Dr. Robert Epstein. And I'm trying to get out another episode you can look for called Political Magic with John Michael Greer. Both of those are relevant. And maybe nothing is as relevant as today's episode.

The science of election rigging. Because here, even yet another way to cheat is uncovered. And this is like the title implies. Science. It's not opinion. It's not activism. It is fact-based. In fact, it's so solid that it has even been verified by AI. If you head over to Skeptico, you can see my colleague Alex Akiris' blog.

Work on this where he and today's guest are taking his research and vetting it through AI, the smartest guy in the room, as Alex likes to call them. And so there's no denying this. The only way anyone can distract from these facts is to suppress this information, which of course is already happening.

If this episode here was released, for example, to YouTube prior to the election, it would immediately be censored. So that's the sorry state of affairs, folks. We do not any longer have free speech and truthful information is being removed. Whereas dis and misinformation is propped up.

when it comes from either the authorities or the corporate media. Now, why would I even care about this? I'm sitting here up on the icebergs of Norway, far away from the action, right? Why would I care?

Because this is relevant to everyone who is under the thumb of the US empire, which is directly including the Five Eyes. You could say the United States is the capital of the Five Eyes empire. And all the NATO states are colonies or satellite states of that empire.

And the only people who has the privilege of voting in this are those living in the capital, the United States itself. But of course, that's not even enough.

They don't trust the people. And so they have this ability to affect the elections in whatever way they prefer. I say they, it's obviously the powers that be, whoever yields this influence. And it's not like it's just going in one direction, one party, one ideology. It's not about that. It's about power.

If you are into power, you do anything to maintain that power and to expand that power. That's history 101. People go to war for that. People murder for that. Obviously, there would be an election rig for it. Now, we know CIA is conducting color revolutions and election fraud around the world to sway countries the way they want. But why would they stop there?

Why would anyone who is obsessed with power suddenly prioritize ethics and integrity? They don't. And so we can only speculate how much influence they have, but it seems to be a consensus among experts that if it's a landslide, and I mean a landslide, for one candidate which is not the establishment, then there is still possible to get someone into office who is not sanctioned by the establishment.

Of course, for every year they are in full control of the machine, the less these chances are, let alone additional manipulations such as those done by Google. It doesn't have to be like this. Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, right before her term expired, she famously did not seek re-election,

She introduced a bill, an election integrity bill. It was in the heat of all the fuss about election rigging, which if they put the money where the mouth is, it would have been cleaned up. It was, like Trump said, it was the perfect bill. It was a beautiful bill. But no, of course it was voted down because...

In a system where bribery is codified after the Supreme Justice decision, Citizens United, everything is about money. Like someone is elected in and they're doing nothing else than campaigning around the clock until the next election. Not to you and me, but to those who matter, namely those with the money.

So that's the sorry state of affairs in American politics. And then you have special interests that are putting their thumb at the scale. And just in case, not everyone are chained to money interests or to Epstein blackmails, etc. And so we can't have that. Now, of course, me sitting here in this colony, this subsidiary of the United States, I want to contribute something.

And I think no better way than to expose a completely new and very sophisticated and very refined way that cheating is done. Now, before I even go on about this, if you have any doubts, let me play something for you. Steve Cooley ran the strongest campaign that year of all the campaigns, and he narrowly lost by just a handful of votes. He was winning on election night.

This is a familiar story to people who've been watching elections recently. He was winning on election night. And then in California, we don't have election day. We have election two months. People are able to vote for 30 days before the election, and then they have 30 days to count the votes. In Florida, by the way, they typically announce the results of an election on election night, like in civilized countries.

But in California, we don't do that. Because that just makes it easier to cheat. It makes it easier to cheat. Yeah. 100%. So she won extremely narrowly. I think it was like 2,000 votes statewide in a state of 40 million people. She won extremely narrowly and she won weeks into the election counting, ballot counting. So I think we can maybe not prove, we can assume cheating.

You know, that was certainly suggested. I can't prove it today, but I can say that when you're talking about a single party state, machine politics, differential application of safeguards on how votes are counted, like some counties match the signatures. Some counties don't bother to do that, even though that's required under the law. Some counties look the other way on irregularities on things like, is the ballot dated? Some don't.

Some counties, Los Angeles County is a prime example, have over a million voters on the voter rolls at that time who were not entitled to be on the rolls. Dead, having moved multiple registrations. Over a million?

after a lawsuit by Judicial Watch in Los Angeles County, showed that in Los Angeles County alone, there were over a million people on the rolls who should have been removed. And they entered into a settlement. And I think four years later, they still hadn't removed those people from the voter rolls. And so when you have a state, you add COVID to that. So four years after 2017 is COVID and you start having all-male voting because of COVID. Right.

Suddenly there are a million extra ballots. All mail, not the Saudi kind of all mail, but M-A-I-L. M-A-I-L. By mail. Ballot, mail ballot voting. Because all mail voting would not allow Kamala Harris to be elected. That's correct. That's correct. So in our system there in California, which by the way has now become the national system by default because crazy California politicians are now running the country in many ways.

or seeking to run the country, it's a very dangerous situation for election integrity. And the person seeking the top job in the United States got her start with campaign and election violations, got away with it, has won elections while getting away with it. And

and is now seeking that top job. So if anyone thinks that she would qualm or have any second thoughts about violating the law to get what she wants, she's done it many times in her career. There are tens of millions of illegal aliens in California. That's a whole other argument there. I mean, I think Kamala Harris is systematically counting on

the votes of people who aren't entitled to vote in multiple different ways in order to try to win this coming election. I mean, they have gone to court repeatedly, Mark Elias through the Democrat machine that Kamala Harris is now enjoying the full support of, to block voter ID laws. It's illegal in California to ask for voter ID. And this is after some jurisdictions tried to pass at a local level, Huntington Beach, voter ID requirements when you register to vote, when you vote.

So the left in this country wants to make it illegal to ask for ID in just about every other way. I mean, to check into a hotel last night, I had to show my ID. Of course. To do anything. To do anything, you have to do that. So if you don't have to produce an ID to vote to choose the government, why do you need to produce one to buy a firearm? Indeed. Right, right.

Now, what's scary about this, Tucker, is, as you and I both know, without Elon Musk being willing to invest in X and allowing us to have a free speech platform, we wouldn't be able to have this conversation publicly right now, right? Well, Kamala Harris wants to make it illegal for journalists to expose the wrongdoing that public officials regularly commit, right?

And so if you don't have the media accountability and you don't have the ability to speak freely and criticize these politicians, they get away with crimes themselves. And so she has made it a hallmark not only of her current campaign, but dating back to her campaign for president in 2020.

that people shouldn't be allowed to speak freely on the internet. We must be able to, I mean, she confronted Elizabeth Warren during one of these debates, trying to get Elizabeth Warren, no shrinking violet herself, to agree that we must have censorship online. And Elizabeth Warren kept trying to change the subject to her credit. You know, she didn't want to agree with Kamala Harris that, yes, we must force X and every social media platform to censor commentary that might be dangerous, not just false, but

but so-called malinformation. Right. Something that criticizes bad leadership. Exactly. So she wants to make it illegal for,

For us to have this kind of a conversation. And in Kamala Harris's United States, it would be illegal for us to criticize the government because that might be dangerous. It might give people the wrong ideas. Right. They might lose control. They might lose control. And their hostility to free speech. I mean, you know, you saw the vice presidential debate recently where.

A sitting governor of the United States, her running mate, spouted wrong think and wrong information about the First Amendment, saying that, for example, you can't shout fire in a crowded theater, which is a dicta from a overruled case that was a shameful case involving censorship of flyers during World War I, you know, criticism of the government.

That really a shameful, truly a shameful case. And that people who objected to getting into the most pointless war of all time, which was the First World War, for no reason whatsoever other than the vanity and ambition of our politicians. And even who criticized that went to jail. A lot of people did go to jail.

People did go to jail for that. And, you know, he also tried to state the canard that hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment. Hate speech is absolutely protected by the First Amendment. What is hate speech?

would go away under Kamala Harris's regime. And she has gotten power and abused it repeatedly throughout her career. Yeah, things are totally out of control. There's no doubt about that. How does she get from Attorney General of California to the Senate? Well, again, it was the machine politics of California. And, you know, in California, there's usually a game of musical chairs, right?

And so one politician is anointed for the next office and then, you know, there's jockeying behind the scenes and then people take their turn. I will say to the Democrats credit that they're usually very disciplined about these issues and, you know, they'll have their vicious game of identity politics behind the scenes. Right. But then one person will emerge from that and some deal making. OK, you run for this, you run for that, you run for the other, you wait your turn. Right.

So it was Kamala Harris's turn to graduate from her two terms as attorney general to run for the Senate.

Senate and the pathway was cleared for her to do that. So then, I mean, if you, when you win the Democratic primary in California statewide, you're, you're done. Yeah. The opposition always recruits somebody and run somebody and they do their best and they're usually better than the Democrat, but the Democrat funding mechanism is such, and the voter registration advantage is such in California that it's virtually impossible for Republicans to win statewide office. And indeed it's been many years since we've won a statewide office in California.

in California. And so...

So it's just, it is a one-party state. It's a one-party state and one-party states become corrupt and there's a lack of accountability and the quality of the legislators goes down and down and down. And so the gene pool, if you will, for these higher offices in California is decreasing. For example, now cabinet member in the Biden administration, Javier Becerra, had barely practiced law before he was deemed to be appropriate to replace Kamala Harris as the

the attorney general in California when she became United States Senator. Barely practiced law. Barely practiced law. I believe it was one year that he had practiced law. So he had an inactive law license for a period of time. He reactivated it. Seriously? That became the attorney general. That's the standard. It doesn't matter. It's just a waiting room for the next office and the next office. So it's going to become interesting to see who's anointed by their machine to replace Gavin Newsom. But we are in California now

Behind this iron curtain, you know, taxpayers are just at the mercy of these increasingly mediocre criminals in California. So... Back to the original question, the potential consequences if, you know, having gone all in, this doesn't work. Yeah. You had to have thought about this long and hard before you did it. What was your thinking? I mean...

Yeah, so my view is that if Trump doesn't win this election, it's the last election we're going to have. That the Democrats, the Dem machine, has been importing so many people, bringing in so many illegals, flying in with this like CBP border app thing that nobody even knew about, like secret program. That's illegal, basically. It's illegal, but there's no action by DOJ to actually stop it from happening.

They're transporting large numbers of illegals to swing states. If you look at the numbers, these are the numbers from the government website. So like from the Democrat-administered government websites. Like where do you get this data? From the government website that is run by Democrats.

And there are triple-digit increases in illegals to all the swing states. And in some cases, it's like 700% over the last three years. Now, these swing state margins are sometimes 10,000, 20,000 votes. So what happens if you put hundreds of thousands of people into each swing state? When somebody is granted asylum, they are fast-tracked. They can get a green card, and then five years after the green card, they can get citizenship and they can fully legally vote.

And when they do so, they vote overwhelmingly Democrat. And sometimes I get this rebuttal of like, well, a lot of them, their social values don't align with sort of the far left sort of woke ideology. I said, that's true, but that's not their top priority. Their top priority is getting their friends and family also to the United States. And the Dems also issue all these programs, these sort of handouts, essentially, that make them beholden to the Democratic Party. So they vote Dem. That's what happens. So my prediction is if there's another four years,

of a Dem administration, they will legalize so many illegals that are there that the next election, there won't be any swing states. And we'll be a single party country, just like California is a single party state.

That's a supermajority-dem state in California. Because of immigration? Yes. California was fairly reliably Republican. Bill Clinton lost California in 92 and won West Virginia. Yes. So there was a 1986 amnesty. Yes. Thereafter, California trended very strongly-dem, and is at this point, I think, 65%, 70%-dem, something like that. It's supermajority-dem. The California legislature is more than two-thirds Democrat. Has it improved the state?

No, it's not. And California just passed, which is shocking. It's hard to believe this is even real. But California just passed a law making it illegal to require voter ID in any election at all in California. Do you know that? No. Yeah. Newsom signed it into law last week. It's illegal to require an ID. In any election, even a town council. And a friend of mine who lives in Palo Alto was like, is this actually real? And he went to vote in some city council election.

He tried to show them his ID, and they said, we're not even allowed to look at your ID. Have they extended the same? Actually, what's going on right now? By the way, they're proud of it. They're not hiding it. But it's only voting. It's not buying a gun or buying liquor or buying a pack of cigarettes or flying on an airplane or renting a hotel room. It's only voting.

Oh, if you try to buy a gun, I mean, they're going to ID you six ways a Sunday. Yeah. And the same people that demanded vaccine IDs, if you want to travel or do anything, are the same ones who say no voter ID is required. Is there any reason to pass a law like that except to abet voter fraud? It's so that fraud cannot be proven. So it enables large-scale fraud and no way to prove it. Because how would you prove it? It's literally impossible. No ID. You're not even allowed to show your ID.

It's insane. Well, it is insane. Insane. So, yeah, the purpose of no voter ID is obviously to conduct fraud in elections. Obviously. There can be no other explanation. I mean, they come up with some nice sounding thing. People don't have IDs. Could you live in this country without an ID? Yeah. I mean, their common rebuttal is like it's racist to require ID.

And which is insane. I think it's actually racist and patronizing to say that people can't figure out how to get ID, obviously. But how could you live here without an ID? I don't think it's even possible. You can't. Yeah. You can't do anything. Yeah. You need ID for everything. Like the list of things you need ID for is basically everything except voting. So...

So you see the rest of the... It's total bullshit, obviously. Obviously. Yes. But that doesn't in any way minimize the aggression or self-righteousness they bring to this conversation. Yes. You're a racist if you want that. Right. In fact, obviously, someone is racist if they say that people of a particular race cannot get ID. That's patronizing and racist. That's absurd. Yes. Yeah. It's like when the governor of New York said people in the ghetto don't know how to use computers or something like that. I mean, like...

Yeah, super out of touch. For sure. Yeah. So you see the other 49 states becoming California if the machine wins? Well, you don't need all 49 to go that way. You just need enough to have the election, have there not be swing states. I mean, there are only six swing states. Yep. So there are only six states out of 50 right now that are in contention. So if those six states that are in contention by narrow margins are no longer in contention,

then the only contest will be who wins the Democratic primary. That's how it is in California. That's how it is in New York. There's no party versus party situation. The only contest is who wins the Democratic primary. And as we've seen with the appointment of Kamala, who no one voted for, even in the Democratic primary, where's the democracy here? It's easier, though. I mean, it's just that the party elite just decides who is in charge. That's a tiny oligarchy, basically.

That's not democracy. The richest people in the country. That's kind of the interesting part to me is that the richest people in the country are on board with this. I mean, that's what it is. It's a collection of billionaires. Well, most of them are, yeah. But you're not. Not me. And not everyone is. I think there's, it is a shocking number of so-called billionaires are, uh,

In the Dem camp. More than are in the Republican camp. Oh, for sure. Which is wild. In fact, the astonishing thing in the swing states is that they're even a contest given that Dems have far more money than the Republicans. So the Kallikamp dramatically outspends the Trump campaign in the swing states. The media is overwhelmingly pro-Democrat.

So you've got the press, you know, is a Dem cheering squad. And so, oh, and then you've got almost all the Hollywood and entertainment, the celebrities also endorsing Kamala and being pro-Dem. So you've got the celebrities, you've got the, they got the money. Basically everything on the side of the Dems. The problem is the underdog here, Trump's the underdog in swing states. And still, it's a contention. It's still 50-50. After all that, what does that tell you?

It tells me that if people actually knew what was going on, they weren't being fed nonstop propaganda, it would be a landslide in favor of Republicans. Yeah. But why not join the easier side? I mean, you're creating problems for yourself by getting on stage with Trump. I mean, you must have had friends who said that to you. Sure. Yes. Yeah. People care about you. Why even get involved in this? Well, because I think we want to remain a democracy and we don't want to become a one-party state.

Yes. That's the reason. And it's the exact opposite. The people who call Trump a threat to democracy, but the people who are saying Trump is a threat to democracy are themselves the threat to democracy. Yes.

One party rule is not democracy. One party where essentially the party elite pick a candidate, as happened with Kamala, is not democracy. Where did the people vote? Show me where the people voted. No, there were no people voting. It was all just Dem party elite that just appointed someone. And when the Biden puppet, when the pro-Biden puppet's ratings sagged, they knifed him in the back immediately and just tossed him out and put a new puppet on. That's exactly what happened. Tell me I'm wrong.

Well, not only are you right, I mean, it's almost not even worth criticizing Kamala Harris. No, no, exactly. What does she have to do with it? There's no point in criticizing Kamala. She's simply the face of a much larger machine. Yes. And she will say whatever the teleprompter, whatever's on the teleprompter, she's going to say it. Yes. Now, she gets stuck if the teleprompter breaks. That happened recently, I think. Yeah. The teleprompter stalled and she was just like looping for a while, for about a minute. Yes.

I think that happened yesterday or something. It was pretty funny to watch. But she'll just say whatever words are on the teleprompter. So it's really whoever controls the teleprompter is the actual sort of, that's who's actually in charge. And who is that, do you think? Well, I've tried to pin it down. It's not like any one kind of mastermind. It's not like, it seems to be Kamala's sort of a marionette with a thousand puppet masters type of thing. It's somewhere north of 100 is what it seems like. Yes. I bet she knows 80 of them.

I probably know most of them, yeah. So, I mean, just by virtue of your job and what you've been doing for the last 30 years, I mean, and I should say, I think you voted for Biden. I'd like to see a matchup of those called the top 100 puppet masters on the FDN client list. Do you think there's some overlap? Strong overlap. Strong overlap. When are we going to see that list, do you think? I don't know. It's mind-blowing that they've not tried to prosecute even one.

Not even the worst offender on the F-10 client list. They've not even tried to prosecute even one. That's insane. Well, because they have a lot of diabetic grandmothers who were outside the Capitol on January 6th. They're kind of occupied. Yeah, I mean, they've put like, whatever, 500 or 600 January 6th protesters in prison and not one person on the F-10 client list. Will that ever come out, do you think? You know, I think part of why Kamala's getting so much support is

Is that if Trump wins, that Epstein client list is going to become public. Yes. And some of those billionaires behind Kamala are terrified of that outcome. Yeah. Because of the disclosure that would follow? Yeah. I mean, I think he's certainly ideologically not aligned with Trump anyway. But I think he's concerned about the Epstein situation. Like something might actually, the DOJ might actually move forward.

There are a lot of videos, apparently. Right. And where's the video? I mean, between Diddy and Epstein, there's probably several thousand hours of footage here. Yeah. Yeah. It's kind of weird that the people on those videos are lecturing the rest of us about our moral failings, isn't it? Yeah, it's weird. What is that?

Well, I mean, part of how they deflect attention from themselves is by criticizing the morals of others. Yes. So they it's sort of like a preemptive moral strike. I mean, as I said, I think those who are saying Trump is a threat to democracy are themselves actually the threat to democracy.

It feels like we're getting to a place where the rest of us know too much. Do you know what I mean? I mean, it's easier to live in a society where you don't really know what the people in charge are doing or why they're doing it. But now, thanks, I would say, largely to X, we do know a lot. Not everything, but we know a lot. And I wonder, like, what happens next now that we know all this? The kidnapper's shown us his face. Like, what happens? Well...

I think if Trump wins, we can do some housecleaning and shed light on things. But I think these are good goals to have. Core values that I believe in, which are we should respect the Constitution and not try to break the Constitution. It's there for a reason. We should stop lawfare. Oh, and right to free speech, you know, First Amendment. If we don't have free speech, we don't have democracy because people cannot make an informed vote. So those are my controversial views. And...

I think, again, very obvious centrist positions. Tell me where I'm going far right here. I think I'm saying very obvious things. You are saying obvious things. Yeah. Which will be very unpopular things. Yeah. I don't think either party, I don't think the Republicans are perfect. Obviously, right now, I'm more Republican than Democrat, but it's not like I think the Republican Party is perfect or is without issues, but we've got a choice between Republicans

two candidates. And I think on balance, it's a no-brainer. And if we don't vote for Trump, I think we're at a serious risk of losing our democracy and becoming a one-party state where there isn't an election anymore. There's only a Democratic primary like there is in California. If this happens, I'll probably need quite a significant security team

because someone might literally go postal on me from the post office. If he loses, I'm fucked. It does seem that way. You can't just be like, you can't just be like, yeah, I'm like, how long do you think my prison sentence is going to be? Will I see my children? I don't know. No, no, and I've been trashing Capola nonstop. Oh, I know!

Well, the Kamala puppet, I call her. The machine that the Kamala puppet represents. Yeah, she's irrelevant. I mean, she's not even... No, no, I made a joke, which I deleted, which is like, nobody's even bothering to try to kill Kamala, because it's pointless. What do you achieve? No, it's totally right. Just find another puppet. Exactly. It's no point in killing... It's deep and true, though. Nobody's trying to kill Joe Biden. It's pointless. Totally.

You actually put that up? Yeah. Now, some people interpreted it as though I was calling for people to assassinate her. But I was like, doesn't it seem strange that no one's even bothered to try? It's not worth it. I mean... There's an endless supply. Yeah, like, nobody would... It's absurd. It could be anybody. Yeah, yeah. Nobody's going to try to... Nobody tries to assassinate a puppet. Of course not. A marionette. Yeah, a marionette. It's just like... You know. It's hilarious.

What you heard there was Tucker Carlson in conversation with Elon Musk, as well as in conversation with Harmeet Dhillon. And they are just pointing out a little example, a little aspect of the entire thing. Now, if you think it's just one party doing this, like I just said, it is bipartisan, this rigging. It depends on who has the power wherever or where it's more useful for

the election to be swayed, in which direction it's most useful for it to go. I mean, it's famous how the Republican Party was benefiting from election rigging back in 2001, when Bush Jr. ascended to power. But if nevertheless you are convinced it's just Republicans who are complaining about this, or the MAGA people...

Let me remind you what happened when Trump won, which many think was actually against the deep state's efforts. Here's a mesh of what the prominent DNC candidate said after that. You can run the best campaign. You can even become the nominee and you can have the election stolen from you. How can you win with Russian interference though?

That's what I'm scared about in 2020. But rightly. Because I think he's an illegitimate president that didn't really win. So how do you, you know, fight against that in 2020? You are absolutely right. He is an illegitimate president in my mind. Would you be my vice presidential candidate? Folks, look, I absolutely agree. Trump didn't actually win the election in 2016.

He lost the election and he was put in the office because the Russians interfered. Trump knows he's an illegitimate president. The president-elect, although legally elected, is not legitimate. You said you believe that Russia's interference altered the outcome of the election. I do. We have a president who, if in fact it is proven, has been assisted by the Russians and may in fact not be a legitimate president. The one thing that Trump...

is fearful of when it comes to his being president is that finally we will see how illegitimate his victory actually was. I have an objection. I object to the 15 votes from the state of North Carolina. I object because people are horrified. He's an illegitimate president. Do you believe Trump is illegitimate president?

What I believe is that there's no question that the outcome of this election was affected by the Russian interference. There absolutely is a cloud of illegitimacy. So that legitimacy is in question, yes. So that was a very tainted election, and in that sense, it's illegitimate. Why do you think the president is going to such great lengths to essentially prove that he beat you? Because he knows he didn't. He knows he's an illegitimate president. So do you believe President Trump is an illegitimate president?

Based on what I just said, which I can't retract. The Russian attempt to have the election, and frankly, the FBI's weighing in on the election, I think makes his election illegitimate. There was a widespread understanding that this election was not on the level. We still don't know what really happened, Isaac. I mean, there's just a lot that I think will be revealed. History will discover.

But you don't win by 3 million votes and have all this other shenanigans stuff going on and not come away with an idea like, whoa, something's not right here. The outcome of the election was affected by their interference. And now we need to know to what degree, if any, the Trump campaign was actually in collusion with Trump.

with Russia. He knows he's an illegitimate president. So of course he's obsessed with me. And I believe that it's a guilty conscience. We actually won the last presidential election, folks. They stole the last presidential election. And Al Gore won that election. I think he won it anyway. Actually, I think I carried Florida. Bush versus Gore.

A court took away a presidency. If all the votes were counted in Florida, then Al Gore would be president today and George Bush would be backing off. I come from Florida, where you and others participated in what I call the United States coup d'etat. There's no doubt in my mind that Al Gore was elected president. I rise to object to the fraudulent 25 Florida electoral votes. I must object because of the overwhelming evidence of official misconduct.

Delivery for all in an attempt to suppress voter turnout. It is signed by myself on behalf of my diverse constituents and the millions of Americans who have been disenfranchised by Florida's inaccurate vote count. The Supreme Court, not the people of the United States, decided this election. Speaking to a Democratic group in Chicago Tuesday, he made it clear he thinks Al Gore was the winner. By the time it was over,

Our candidate had won the popular vote, and the only way they could win the election was to stop the voting in Florida. Katherine Harris, Jeb Bush, Jim Baker, and the Supreme Court hadn't tampered with the results. Al Gore would be president. The Supreme Court elected the president. Al Gore won the state of Florida in 2000, although not the presidency. But the Supreme Court tampered? That's a large charge. The Supreme Court stopped the counting of the votes, and if they'd let the count go on,

Al Gore would have got the necessary votes. The Supreme Court selected George W. Bush as the president. He was not elected. There is overwhelming evidence that George W. Bush did not win this election. What I observed as a voter, as a citizen of Illinois...

Four years ago were troubling evidence of the fact that not every vote was being counted. I don't think that George W. Bush won the election in 2000 against Al Gore because I think he probably lost Florida and also nationwide. If you invite me back on this show in about eight weeks, I think you're going to learn that Al Gore actually did get all the votes there.

The court has been thwarting formation of the popular will, the most spectacular example being Bush versus Gore, where the majority by a 5-4 vote enjoined the counting of more than 100,000 ballots in Florida and essentially gave America its first court-appointed president. Let's go, let's go, let's go.

♪♪

And malfunctioning electronic machines, which may not have paper receipts, have led to additional loss of confidence by the public. The right to vote has been stolen from qualified voters. In 2004, the democratic process was thwarted. The 2004 presidential election in Ohio was riddled with unnecessary problems. Some machines malfunctioned, causing votes to be counted more than once.

or not at all. Based upon an inordinate number of allegations suggesting gross voting rights violations and misconduct, I join with my colleagues in objecting to counting the state of Ohio's electoral votes. As in 2000, the votes of many who wanted to vote were not in fact counted. This last Friday night, I arranged to meet Senator Kerry at a fundraiser to give him a copy of my book,

He told me he now thinks the election was stolen. The wife of John Kerry said she has lingering doubts about the legitimacy of the election. Her theory goes like this. Two brothers, she calls hard right Republicans, own 80% of voting machines in the U.S. Therefore, it would be easy to hack

into the mother machines that control the electronic voting. There were numerous irregularities in Ohio, including large percentages of rejections of provisional balloting, problems with voting machines. As we look at our election system, I think it's fair to say that there are many legitimate questions

about its accuracy, about its integrity. There are still legitimate concerns over the integrity of our elections. The question obviously is how many instances were not caught that we don't know about. Number one, we've seen a lot of what I call honest glitches where it just didn't work right. But also that these machines are hackable. A dishonest employee of the vendor or a dishonest employee of the local board of elections or simply someone who knows electronics and has a computer at home.

could hack into these machines and put in a secret instruction to disregard every 20th Democratic vote or add 10% to the Kerry or to the Bush vote or whatever, he might not ever know it. I agree with tens of millions of Americans who are very worried that when they cast the ballot on an electronic voting machine that there is no paper trail to record that vote. The numerous irregularities that occur with the electronic voting machines

in Ohio on November the 2nd of last year point to an unresolved national crisis. We cannot declare that the election of November 2nd, 2004 was free and clear and transparent.

and real. There must be independent testing of the voting machines used in Ohio. I'm not confident that the election in Ohio was fairly decided. We know that there was substantial voter suppression and the machines were not reliable. The members of Congress who have brought this challenge are speaking up for their aggrieved constituents, many of whom may have been disenfranchised in this process. Treating today's electoral vote count in Congress

as a meaningless ritual would be an insult to our democracy unless we registered our own protest against the obviously flawed voting process that took place in so many of our states. Voters who wish to cast a vote for president or vice president can't approach the polls with certainty that their vote will be counted. One of the most significant problems in Ohio and in many other states was the lack of measures to ensure the integrity of electronic voting machines. In 2004, they...

caused Democratic voters in Ohio to wait for eight hours before they could cast their ballot. They turned the Department of Civil Rights and the Justice Department into the voter suppression division with voter ID laws, voter purging, voter caging, voter intimidation. There aren't going to be any more election stealings. And despite the final tally and the inauguration and the situation we find ourselves in, I do have one very affirmative statement to make. Without voter suppression,

Stacey Abrams would be the governor of Georgia. Andrew Gillum is the governor of Florida. I acknowledge that former Secretary of State Brian Kemp will be certified as the victor in the 2018 gubernatorial election. This is not a speech of concession. If she'd had a fair election, she already would have won.

You refused to concede and say that you lost. Do you stand by that decision today? Absolutely. The election was not fair. The process was not fair. If Stacey Abrams doesn't win in Georgia, they stole it. It's clear. It's clear. I think that Stacey Abrams' election is being stolen from her. You notably did not concede. I did not. Okay, you acknowledged that he won, but you did not concede. Correct. Five months later, do you still feel like...

your opponent won through voter suppression? Yes. Georgia voters did not have their votes counted. They were not allowed to cast votes. They had their votes discarded. She would be the governor of Georgia today had the governor of Georgia not disenfranchised 1.4 million Georgia voters before the election. That's what happened to Stacey Abrams.

They took the votes away. Was the election in Georgia statewide a free and fair election? It was not a free and fair election. Reminder, she wrote, Brian Kemp stole the gubernatorial election from Georgians and Stacey Abrams. And it was not fair to those who filled out absentee ballots. And depending on the county you sent it to, it either was counted or not counted, assuming you received it in time.

Brian Kemp oversaw for eight years the systematic and systemic dismantling of our democracy, and that means there could not be free and fair elections in Georgia. It certainly gave the appearance of unfairness, and I think it was unfairness. Stacey ran a great campaign. She probably won. But will I say that this election was not tainted, was not a disinvestment and a disenfranchisement of thousands of voters? I will not say that. Candidates both black and white.

lost their races because they have been deprived of the votes they otherwise would have gotten. And the clearest example is from next door in Georgia. Stacey Abrams should be governor, leading that state right now. So you don't feel that you lost fair and square? I'm not saying it's going to be legit. The increase in the prospect of being illegitimate is a direct proportion of us not being able to get these reforms passed.

Now, this was a mesh of various top Democrats denying election results. Among others were Hillary Clinton, Kamala Harris, Joe Biden, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Stacey Abrams, etc. So it comes from both sides. It's not just Trump who complained about this in 2020. It comes from all sides. And if they really meant what they said, they would have supported Tulsi Gabbard's bill.

But of course, it's an advantage to the powers in both parties to have that option, to have that option to put their thumb on the scales, as long as it can go both ways. Nevertheless, the people complaining in 20 were extremely demonized for complaining, which is out of this world. I mean, every election people complain. I mean, it's so more than others, but still, it's nothing new.

But this time it was completely demonized, people thrown in jail, heavy-handed censorship about it. And I myself were in doubt. I was an agnostic on this point. I mean, specifically the 20 election. I kind of was thinking, well, it may be on both sides, so it canceled each other out. But...

As you will learn today, it not only happened, but to such a degree that it pushed Biden into the White House. And again, this isn't opinionating. This isn't activism. This is science. Now, since it's a rather long show today, over six hours, I'll not play for you preview clips of what's to come. Instead, you'll get this informative teaser.

This quest to dive into election integrity. I got to say, when I first saw it, I was like, hmm, OK. But then I dug into this Andy Paquette and whoa, this is some seriously interesting stuff. Yeah, he gets into some deep waters with this whole analysis of New York voter databases. And I mean, before you think data boring, let me tell you, the guy's background is anything B-U-T boring. Right. Like this isn't just some...

Some IT guy with an ax to grind. Exactly. Ph.D., history of diving into complex data sets. He even did some groundbreaking work on, get this, precognitive dreams. No way. Really? Yeah. So when this guy says he's found something fishy in voter data, it kind of makes you sit up and pay attention. It really does. It really does. And he's not talking about like the usual hacked voting machine stuff. This is deeper. Oh, yeah. Way deeper.

Faket and his team actually got their hands on voter databases, multiple databases, and they started noticing some really weird patterns. Like they found what he calls cloned records, which are basically duplicate voter registrations, sometimes multiple duplicates for the same person. Oh, yeah, I remember that. And these weren't typos or accidents. We're talking identical signatures, reproductions.

registrations filed on the exact same day, almost like someone just copy and pasted the entries to create fake voters. Right, like a whole army of phantom voters. Exactly. And it gets weirder. Oh, it totally does, because then he starts talking about finding these

out of range ID numbers, basically voter ID numbers that don't fit the usual format. Like they were generated outside the normal system. Exactly. Wild, right. And then there's this thing he calls the Yates spiral, which honestly sounds like something out of a Dan Brown novel, but it's actually this pattern of linked anomalies in the data.

And Paquette argues this spiral. This isn't random. It's evidence of a deliberate algorithm, like a program designed to manipulate the voter rolls. A program. Or could it be? OK, so that's a lot of technical jargon. How does this actually play out in the real world? Like, give me an example. Sure. So Paquette actually describes sending teams out to do like on-demand.

on the ground verification. So they take these suspicious registrations and actually go knock on doors, talk to the voters listed. And time and time again, they'd find people who had no idea they were registered to vote multiple times or or sometimes even that votes have been cast in their names without their knowledge. He tells this one story about this woman who had three voter registrations all filed on the same two days, a full year before she even registered to vote.

- Oh wow. - She even remembers being pregnant when she registered. And her son was a year old by the time they knocked on her door. - That's crazy. - This wasn't some innocent mistake. Somebody created those registrations so they could vote in her name. - Exactly, it's like invasion of the body snatchers, but instead of aliens, it's like you said, phantom voters. - Right.

And Paquette and his team, they even found cases where people were deliberately purged from the system so the fraudulent votes cast in their names would just sail right through. He calls them purge records. Yeah, it's creepy. It is, it is. But here's where it gets really creepy. He talks about how this technology, this algorithm, it isn't limited to New York. He suggests it could be deployed anywhere by anyone with the know-how and the access. And that's what's so unsettling about this. If someone can manipulate...

voter data in this way, you know, it really makes you question the integrity of the entire system. Oh, absolutely. And this is where it gets even more interesting because it ties into the AI.

How similar tactics might be playing out on a much larger scale, not just in elections, but in like the very information we consume every day. So we've got these algorithms potentially messing with elections. That's kind of freaking me out. It's unsettling. Because if it can lie about one thing. Right, exactly. What else is it twisting, you know? And the implications are even more unsettling.

When you connect this back to what Paquette was saying about election manipulation. Oh, right, right. What if, in addition to messing with the voter rolls, someone is also using AI to control the information surrounding the election? Think about it.

Shaping narratives, spreading misinformation, discrediting legitimate news sources, all done through like these seemingly intelligent chat bots or AI generated content. So it's like a double whammy of manipulation. You've got the algorithms potentially messing with the actual votes and then AI shaping the information people are getting about the election to either cover it up or influence how they vote in the first place. Precisely. AI might not just be manipulating our understanding of like politics or elections.

but our understanding of reality itself. Okay. Because if we don't understand our own consciousness, if we don't grasp its power and potential, how can we be sure we're not being manipulated by forces that do? Oh, wow. So we've gone from rigged elections to AI chatbots that could give HL a run for its money. It's a lot. This is some heavy stuff to process, you know, but I have to ask, like,

The million dollar question here, what does this all mean for me? Like, what am I supposed to do with this information? Right, right. And that's kind of the question that Paquette Levo is grappling with, I think. And the most empowering takeaway, in my opinion, is awareness. Okay. You know, Paquette argues that understanding how these, you know, vote manipulating algorithms work. Right. And it's the first step in fighting back. He says, and I love this quote, he says, sunlight is the best disinfectant. Ooh.

Ooh, I like that. Right. Yeah. The more we know about these systems, the better equipped we are to, you know, spot irregularities, demand transparency. So it's not about just like throwing our hands up in despair. It's about getting informed and getting involved. Exactly. You know, understanding how AI can be used to manipulate information. That's crucial in this age of deep fakes and personalized propaganda and all this stuff. It's true. We need to be critical thinkers questioning the information that we're fed.

especially when it comes from these seemingly intelligent sources online. Oh, 100%. It's like that old saying, don't believe everything you read on the internet, but like on steroids now. On steroids. And it's not even just about being cynical or distrusting everything, but just

cultivating that healthy sense of thinking for ourselves, cross-referencing information, seeking out diverse perspectives, maybe even being a little more skeptical of our own deeply held beliefs. Oh, that's a good point. Yeah. So this deep dive wasn't just about election fraud or AI gone rogue. It was about like waking us up to the fact that we're in a whole new world of

information warfare almost. It is. And our minds are the battleground. I think that's a really powerful way to put it. And, you know, ultimately the best defense we have is our own consciousness. Okay. Our ability to think critically, to question, to remain curious, to never stop learning. So to everyone listening out there, stay curious, stay informed, and most importantly, stay engaged. Because, I mean, the future of like our information ecosystem and maybe even our understanding of reality itself kind of depends on it.

Keep asking the tough questions and keep searching for the truth. Now, in part one, we will hear our guest's journey to how he uncovered these things. And in part two, you will get the punchline about the most grave techniques and methods used. I hope both parts can come out before us.

this 24 election, but if not, perhaps you should donate a dollar and listen to part two, which is available at our website, or search out his work, his upstack reports, or interviews elsewhere. As for our guest tonight, it is Dr. Andrew John Paquette. He's an artist, writer, and researcher known

for his work across multiple industries, including comic books, computer graphics, video games, fine art and academia. His diverse career spans over 30 years. His contributions include significant achievements in feature film, video games, education and research into paranormal phenomena and election integrity. His education began at Harker Academy, which he attended from 72 to 74.

He later pursued a degree in printmaking at Santa Barbara City College from 80 to 82, followed by a focus on painting at the Maine College of Art and Design between 82 and 84. He continued his artistic studies at Art Center College of Design, where he majored in painting from 84 to 85.

Paquette began his professional career as a freelance illustrator in 86, working with prominent clients such as Time magazine, the New York Times, Scholastic, Atlantic Monthly Press, CBS Records and Turner Broadcasting. His work during this period included editorial and commercial illustrations for major publications, including a special edition cover for Time.

By 90, he had transitioned into the comic book industry, where he worked with Marvel, DC and Harry's Comics. His notable contributions include penciling and inking for titles like Daredevil, Nightbreed, Hellraiser, Deathstroke and Teen Titans. During this time, he co-created the comic series Harsh Realm, which was later adapted into a television series by Fox Comics.

and produced by Chris Carter, creator of the X-Files. He founded and ran Main FX in the mid-90s, taking on commercial projects before shifting to Hollywood to work on major motion pictures.

In 1994, he moved into computer graphics and video game development. Over the next decade, he worked as a CG artist and art director for major studios, including Rhythm & Youth, Sony Pictures, Imageworks, Cinesite, Universal Studios, Digital Arts and Epic Games. His contributions during this period were substantial, including work on several notable projects, some of which became platinum bestsellers.

For example Space Jam from 96, Spider-Man from 02, Daredevil from 03, Parasite Eve from 98, Full Spectrum Warrior from 04, Scooby Doo: Night of the Hundred Frights from 02.

After leaving the feature film and video game industries in 2003, Andrew Paquette focused on plain-air landscape painting. He produced a large body of work during this period, including several large-scale paintings of the American Southwest.

His work was exhibited in five solo shows at the Leakey Gallery in Scottsdale, where he received critical attention for his vivid representation of nature. His style, which blends technical skill with deep observation of nature, has been highlighted in art magazines like American Artists.

In 2004 Paquette wrote and published a screenplay titled Peripheral Vision which was released by Black Coat Press. In 2006 he moved to the Netherlands where he co-founded the International Game Architecture and Design Academy at Breda University of Applied Sciences. As a senior lecturer and art department manager from 2006 to 2012

He developed and led the curriculum for the game development program, helping establish it as one of the leading computer graphics programs in Western Europe.

Between 12 and 18, he continued his work as a senior lecturer, focusing on research in visualization, procedural modeling and medical visualization. During this period, he also pursued a PhD in computer graphics from King's College London, which he completed in 18. His doctoral thesis explored the development of proficiency among digital art students, focusing on threshold concepts as key elements in achieving expertise.

Throughout his academic career, he delivered lectures and participated in conferences, including Game Developers Conferences in Lyon in 2007, SIGGRAPH Asia in Singapore in 2012,

three annual conference in wales in 13. he's also participated in smaller seminars and workshop related to educational methodology computer graphics and artistic visualization he's been a member of the society for scientific exploration since 2012 contributing to discussions on topics such as near-death experiences psy phenomena and dream research

In 15, Paquette launched Puck Photo, offering portrait and commercial photography services. His work has been featured in international sporting events such as the 3x3 FIBA Eurocup in Amsterdam in 17. In addition to his photography, Paquette has continued writing. He served as a staff writer for law enforcement today.

between 20 and 21 and has been a freelance writer for Red Voice Media since 21 where he contributes investigative journalism and research focused pieces. He has written several notable books and articles Dreamer 20 Years of Psychic Dreams and How They Changed My Life from 11 NDA Implications from a Group Spontaneous Long Distance Veridical OBEs in 12 from Journal of Scientific Exploration

An Introduction to Computer Graphics for Artists in 2013. Spatial Visualization and Professional Competence in 2018. The Interpretation of Independent Agents and Spiritual Content in Dreams from the International Journal of Dream Research in 2018. Since completing his PhD, Andrew has turned his focus to independent research on election systems, specifically addressing election fraud prevention.

In 23, he published an influential study in the Journal of Information Warfare titled The Caesar Cipher and Stacking the Deck in New York State Voter Rolls, which detailed hidden algorithms used to manipulate vote ID numbers. And it is exactly his research into election integrity and his personal contribution to election fraud prevention, which is the focus of today's episode.

Welcome to Forum Borealis, Andrew. Thank you very much. It's a pleasure to be here. Pleasure to have you, although I wish it was one of the other topics we could pick your brain for, rather than this depressing but yet so important one. I feel a certain urgency with this thing you're into now because this year is going to be, if you thought the past year was crazy, brace yourself for this year.

Oh, yeah. That's a non-Clairvoyant prediction for you, but it's going to be 100% correct. Now, I heard you talk on Skeptico about this, and I'm glad Alex gave it airtime, but I felt you didn't go deep enough, and...

I could hear you were pressed for time. And I just want you to know, here today, we do deep dives. So you have all the time in the world to present your case. And folks, it's about, and we haven't covered this since 2015. We had a very renowned expert, Robert Fitrakis, on.

But that's eight years ago and stuff is probably worse now than ever. And here we have Andrew Paquette who's actually done some scientific exploration of this thing. And

He's going to present this to us. But, Andrew, you're a doctor. Yeah. Although I lived in the Netherlands, I was doing my PhD at King's College London. Okay, good. That will give more credence for some people, at least. Because for some reason, most people are hypnotized when it comes to election fraud. They just soon out, think everything. Well, the way I see it, if you don't have a PhD, you obviously don't know what you're talking about. And if you do...

Yeah. If you do have a PhD, you're obviously a crazy mad doctor of some kind. Right, right, right. It kind of goes both ways. On the take. Yeah, correct. Academician. Yeah. I guess that's why we're not getting anywhere. Everyone's wrong. Okay. But I have to say.

I must say, what I've heard from you is very good. And what Alex has told me is very good. So if you enjoy this interview today, maybe we can rendezvous later this year on some of the other stuff that you're into. That would be fine, yeah. It's more interesting. I would say this topic here today is probably more important, at least more urgent. But personally, I find other stuff, especially the spiritual stuff, more interesting.

Yeah, you know, it's a funny thing. When I started tracking my dreams and Alex has probably told you this story, so I won't go into all the details. But at the top level view, I I did not think I was having dreams about the future. It was my wife who who kept telling me that. And it was really annoying. And then I realized the only way to honestly refute her was not to just say you're wrong. That was a really bad way to do it.

But she's a woman. Well, I didn't take that into account. But in any event, but the way to do it was to actually record the dream so I could show her she was wrong. And then it turned out she was right. So I got real fascinated by the I hope you let her know she was right.

Oh yeah, but I was very fascinated by the precognitive dreams because they're supposed to be impossible. So for quite a while, that's really all I paid attention to. But meanwhile, I was having all these spiritual dreams.

And I was ignoring them because there was nothing I could really compare them to for for radicality. But eventually I did take a look at those and I found out that they were far more interesting than the precognitive ones. And I think far more important as well. And this this research that I've been doing on on the New York voter rolls is.

I feel kind of transcends the other subjects I've been looking into in a similar way. At the moment, it's not just topical and interesting. It's super important for people to understand. And funny thing, I actually did have two dreams that helped me solve a math puzzle embedded in the algorithm I found. But let's get to the matter at hand. First, I want to know, because...

As people heard, this isn't your normal focus. So I want you to explain to us how you stumbled into this field to begin with. Well, it had to do with the pandemic, believe it or not, or as I like to call it, the fake pandemic. Mm-hmm.

But I left the Netherlands to come to New York where I intended to start a commercial photography studio. And I would still like to do that. However, the pandemic changed my plans because what happened was the people I would have to interact with were suddenly unavailable. The studios I would have to hire for a space to do photo shoots and so on were closed and

And I had to find something else to do with my time. And this was in the run up to the American election of 2020. At the same time, we had riots going on all over the place in the United States, which is something I'd never experienced.

I'd never seen in my life in the U.S. I'd heard about something like that in the 1960s, but I'd never actually seen it. And it was scary. So I was thinking I would set up some photo shoots that had nothing to do with making money, but would at least keep me busy. When a photographer in New York contacted me and said that he needed people to do jobs for him,

Because he couldn't get out of the city, you know, New York City and I was outside the city So he was asking other photographers to do jobs for him and they would take the majority of the fee and I thought great I'll do that. So one of the things he wanted was photos of first responders these would be people like emergency personnel firemen and Doctors that kind of people. Hmm now

Now, I got some of those photos for him. And while I was doing it, I realized I didn't have any policemen.

And in my mind, policemen are first responders also, although this guy hadn't asked for that. But I thought, what the heck, I'm going to get some because they are first responders too. And also because I felt sorry for them. I thought the police were being treated horribly by the press and also by people at these protests. They were spitting on them. And the policemen had obviously been told to hold back and not respond. So they were just standing there taking all this abuse.

So I contacted a guy who I thought could help me find some policemen I could photograph,

And while I was talking to him, he offered me a job writing for his publication, Law Enforcement Today. I didn't even know he was a publisher. And I certainly didn't think I was interviewing for a job as a writer. It didn't occur to me at all. The invisible hand in play. Right. Yeah. So he said, just based on talking to me, he thought I could write. And this isn't the first time that kind of thing has happened. I had another conversation with a lady in Japan recently.

that resulted in me writing and her publishing four books of mine on computer graphics and my PhD thesis. Let's plug your literature at the end of the show, okay? Yeah, but the point is that I wasn't trying to do that. No, no, no. I know, but I just got reminded that you actually have published things. So we usually do that at the end of the show. So just remind me if I forget. Okay.

Okay. You can remind me if I forget. So anyway, so this guy had me writing for his publication. It was designed for the law enforcement community, so all the topics had to be related to it. And from my point of view, the biggest issues that those guys were dealing with was the riots. So I wound up writing a lot about the riots.

I wrote about 150 articles for them, something like that. But while I was working on that subject, I started talking about the elections.

And the reason I was talking about the elections was the way I saw it, the riots were Joe Biden's campaign for president because he wasn't overtly campaigning. He wasn't going out on the campaign trail like Donald Trump and saying, vote for me as president. What was happening instead was you had riots occurring throughout the country where all

All the other Democrats were supporting the rioters and the rioters were clearly supporting Biden because they were killing Trump supporters or beating them up or yelling at them or swearing at them and, you know, calling them names or throwing bricks. Killing? Did anyone die?

Yes. There were several dozen police officers were killed and a bunch of civilians as well. Like in one riot, there was a black Trump supporter. And I only mentioned his race because this is something that Democrats have made important. Personally, I don't care about this kind of stuff. But

But the Democrats care a lot about race. They are, as far as I'm concerned, the biggest racist in the American society today because they can't talk about anything without bringing up race, which is just offensive to me. But in any event, there was this well-known local black Trump supporter, and I think it was Milwaukee,

but I might be wrong about the city in any event. He was standing outside this building that he, I guess he owned or rented or something. It was some kind of a shop and it was full of pro Trump posters and a bunch of writers went by and just shot him to death. That, that kind of thing was happening. And,

And I'm thinking, you know, who needs a campaign for president when all you have to do is shoot all of the supporters of the other candidate, right? Which is what these guys seem to be doing. That is if they're dependent on the vote. But we all know the Stalin quote. I don't care who votes. I care who counts the votes. We're going to get to that, of course, of course. Yes, we are. But in any event, so this is what my thinking is at the time. Right, right.

So what I'm looking at is I'm looking at a situation where Biden really doesn't have to campaign because these riots are very intimidating to people. And I was thinking, you know, that the effect of this is going to be the opposite of what what they're hoping it's going to be, because, you know, again, this is my perspective at the time. I was thinking, OK,

If they're trying to get Trump voters to not vote for Trump by threatening them this way, because I looked at it as an overt threat. That's exactly how I took it from my point of view. But these rioters were trying to accomplish was to scare the daylights out of Trump voters so that they would vote for Biden.

And it did have that effect. It did scare Trump voters. And it scared me because I was thinking, oh, my gosh, these are a bunch of savage rampaging animals that need to be contained somehow. And that is, as far as I was concerned, a great argument for voting for Trump. So but don't you think don't you think many people react by doubling down like Trump?

just because of that reaction, you become more. That's what I just said. Yeah. Yeah. I do think so. I, so I think that they would, they would have had the opposite effect. They would actually have, have made people vote for Trump.

So anyway, but the point is, this is how I started focusing on elections was I was looking at that. And because my editors, for some reason, insisted that I know what I'm talking about, I had to do all sorts of research on, you know, on my sources for, you know, why, why am I saying this is the reason for that?

So I would have to look up all these sources. Of course, I would do that anyway. That's kind of normal for anyone. That's in your training, right? In your practice. Yeah, exactly.

So and now that I had my my Ph.D., I actually knew how to do that sort of research, which I didn't know how to do before in any event. So looking up all these sources got me really curious about what was going on with the the elections. But I expected I fully expected that as soon as Trump won.

That all of the riots would disappear because as I was looking at them they were They literally were Joe Biden's campaign. I don't think they had any other purpose So that's what my expectation was and I when I went to bed on election night It was at four o'clock in the morning and I was looking at the election results up to that point and all Trump needed was two states to win and it didn't matter which two they were any two states were enough to to give him the advantage and

And he had a unassailable lead in Pennsylvania at the time. It was 680,000 votes or so. And with the amount of votes that have been counted, I didn't see any mathematical way that he could possibly lose Pennsylvania. And something similar was true in one of the other states. I forget which one it was, but there were four to choose from Michigan, Wisconsin, and

Georgia and Arizona. Are these so-called, what do you call it? You know, the states on the tip which can go either way? They're called swing states. Swing states. Are these swing states? Yes. So these are the ones where you really can't tell who's going to win until they've counted the last vote. And I think it was either Wisconsin or Michigan where his lead was so huge that

It was highly unlikely that Trump could possibly lose it. It wasn't like Pennsylvania where it was just about impossible, but it was so close to impossible that I didn't see him losing that either. And then he had three other states to choose from, all of which were strong states for him. So I went to bed thinking, great, he's won.

And when I woke up the next morning and I was told that Biden won, I was thinking, what the heck? How did that happen? Just because I didn't see any way it could have possibly happened. By the way, were you at that point where you inclined to vote Trump? Yes. Yeah. Funny thing is that I didn't really think of myself as being interested in politics or as a Republican for most of my life.

I just didn't think of myself as having a political dimension because I was more interested in my art than anything else. And secondarily, my other research that I was doing. So I was paying attention to my career and my interests, none of which converged with or crossed paths with politics in any way until the 9-11 attacks in 2001.

At that point, I realized that I did not sympathize with the hijackers, but with the people who got killed by the hijackers. And apparently that made me conservative. And when I thought about it a little bit more, I realized that I had other conservative tendencies as well. Like, for instance, I believe in God. OK, so that's although liberals believe in God, too, sometimes it's less common than with conservatives.

Yeah, you have that liberal conservative kind of dichotomy going on over there. From Holland, you probably remember there's a million parties. You do have that in America, too. You don't have to go RNC or DNC, but most people for some reason do. Well, the reason is because the non-Republican and conservative or rather non-Republican or Democrat vote, it cumulatively is...

Maybe 1% or less of the total votes cast. So there is almost no chance of winning if you are with one of the other parties. It's true, but I don't know if I'm going to spend time on explaining the other advantages. It's not really about winning. It's about transforming the system. You know swing states? You can become a swing party.

But you also kind of pressure the other parties. If, let's say, 10% of those who vote Republican actually vote Libertarian, then you kind of force Republicans to adopt more Libertarian policies. The same with the Greens and the Democrats. You see what I mean? So stuff like that. I agree with you on that. And I actually think that the two-party system in America has to be dismantled. I think it's a very dangerous thing and it's very easy to control. And that is what makes it very dangerous. Yeah, yeah.

So I much prefer the idea of a parliamentary system where you're voting for individuals, not for parties actually. Because actually in America, the individual is irrelevant. For instance, when I was in the Netherlands and Obama was going up against McCain, I got interviewed by the local newspaper because I was somewhat prominent in education circles in the Netherlands because I had co-founded what was the most successful bachelor's program in the whole country.

And, um, we were getting a lot of positive praise for that. And I was an American. And so they thought this guy can probably comment. Right. And I said, I was voting for John McCain. And the fact is, I don't like John McCain. I didn't like him then. I don't like him now. And I didn't like him at any time in, in my life. Uh, but the thing is, I was voting for him because he

I'm Republican. And the reason that I would do that is that in America, the party is more important than the person because the party tells the person what they're going to do. So, so it really doesn't matter what the individual's personal characteristics are. You have to look at what the party's characteristics are. Um, so I was voting for the party and the, the newspaper thought that was just a ridiculous spot of humor, I think. Um,

An American would be so silly as to do that. But that's very much how the American system works. And so that's what I did. Actually, it's actually not what I did. That was what I wanted to do. But it turned out for me to cast a vote would have been very complicated because I'd have to travel to Amsterdam and go to the embassy there and get a vote by mail. Right, right. Yeah, because you were a citizen there.

No, not a citizen, but you lived in Holland at the time. But anyway, you had a pro-Trump bias and you admit that. So I just wanted to clear that up. Yeah. So go on with your story. I wouldn't even say it's a bias. I absolutely support Trump. And anyway, so... But wait a minute. Wouldn't that make a bias for Trump? I think this has to do with your definition of the word bias. Right. The way I think of bias...

is it's not full support. It's a tendency to... It's like a weak form of support. Whereas if you really support somebody, you don't say you have a bias, you just say you support that person. Does that make sense? Yeah. So you could call it bias. Yeah, okay, that makes sense. What I meant was that you were inclined to... You would have incentive to take the Trumpian side of things seriously. You understand? Yeah.

Yeah, which is true, but... I'll give you a better example. If you believe in God and you have a research task that somehow implicates materialism versus...

metaphysics, then me, who is inclined obviously to the metaphysics, would have a bias. It doesn't mean it's going to taint my research. That's to do with what... But it could explain why I would take on that research task, if you see what I mean. A materialist would maybe say, no, I don't even bother because God doesn't exist, so this is a waste of time. So this is how actually a bias can be positive. I actually think this is a very good analogy to what happened here. Okay.

You understand what I mean? Okay, so the only difference between the way you're using that word and the way I would use it is I look at a bias as being weaker than what is actually present in this case. Right, right, right. So it's true, but I look at, I would use it in my mind as someone from America. So you were committed, that's what you're saying. You were very committed to the Trump campaign. Yeah, it's like the decision's already made, so there's no bias that could...

that would sway my position. Cause I look at it, a bias is something that affects your judgment. Uh, whereas a commitment is a decision already made. So there's no judgment to, to bias. Do you see what I'm saying? Yeah. Good clarification. But, uh, I can understand with that horrible choice in 20. I look in 16. I think my view to Trump was not to take him seriously. Uh,

Not in terms of could he win or not, but that he was this character from the reality shows, etc. In 20, people had four years experience, right? America was not turned into the fourth Reich. Oh, really? And we also knew that the establishment had a new mask on the other side. So I can kind of see why people would be on...

If I was American, I would neither vote Democrats nor... But I can understand why people would do it in 20, is all I'm saying. Let me use a comparison to George Bush, okay? Yeah. For the most part, you know, I...

I don't know much about the people involved, OK, in these elections. And I didn't really study them very carefully because I didn't take an interest in politics until. Right. Yeah. But when Bush was elected at that time, I thought I had the same opinion I was supposed to have as dictated by the media of the time.

The media of the time didn't like Bush and the reason was because he's conservative whoever the Republican candidate was no matter who it was It was gonna be a bad guy because the media is against conservatives, right? And my opinion was based on what I read in the media and since the media was completely controlled by the same party they all had the exact same message so when Bush came into office and

I was thinking, I can't take him seriously. He probably has some shady, crooked stuff in his past, and he's going to be an incompetent. Okay? That was my opinion going into his presidency. And then shortly after he became president, we had the 9-11 attack. And at that time, I thought his reaction did him credit. I didn't think he looked as silly or as obnoxious as he was made to look in the press. Okay? However...

Later on, I started really doubting him. And the reason was because we had that debt crisis with the collapse of the real estate market in 2006 that affected many banks in the United States. And they started failing and actually would fail and I thought should fail.

But instead, Bush went ahead and bailed them all out by using government money. And I thought that showed that, number one, he was bought and paid for by those banks, which made him corrupt. Or he was bought and paid for by somebody else who was connected to the banks. Either way, I didn't like it because it meant using taxpayer money to fund essentially what amounted to a gambling operation. And

And that made no sense. As far as I was concerned, that meant that those banks took no risk. And if they're not taking any risk, then all of their profits are basically free money gained through a game system, right? So in that context, the gambling houses of Las Vegas or Monte Carlo are much more honest than the investment banks of New York, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah.

And George Bush helped them do it. And so did Obama, by the way. Yeah, because they both represent the establishment. Yeah. So at that point, I was thinking, okay, so maybe he isn't the good guy. And the other thing is, just before that happened, I realized...

I remember he'd say things, you know, I'm going to do this and I'd be thinking, oh, that sounds great. But then it wouldn't happen. And he'd say, oh, well, it was too difficult. It was impossible. But I tried. Right. And I was thinking, huh, that's a likely story because I think it was possible. But it doesn't look like you try it hard enough. That was my impression. But I couldn't really say for sure that was the case.

Now, if we flash forward to Trump's presidency, the same kind of thing happened at the beginning. OK, in 2016, I was thinking, oh, the press tells me he's a clown. Therefore, he's a clown. Therefore, I will regard him as a clown. OK, but I can't change the fact that.

I also had some knowledge of him before that. OK, and that did have give me a couple of reasons to pause that were separate from what the press was saying. The press was saying you can't take him seriously because he's a reality TV star, basically.

But I had no knowledge of that because I had never seen The Apprentice. I was dimly aware of it and I didn't know it was a super popular program. I just knew it. But obviously you knew Trump. Come on. Yes, I did. And I was going to say, you know, you actually have this habit. You've done this like five times now in our conversation where you say something like a split second before I'm about to say the same thing. Ah, okay. So it's really interesting. Yeah.

Yeah. So anyway, the thing is, is I used to live in New York City. And when I lived in New York City, the biggest thing in New York City was Donald Trump. OK, he was all over the place in the 90s and the 80s when I was living there. And and I just saw his name constantly. Now, the biggest association I had with his name was the fact that he opened all these casinos in Atlantic City and hotels, I assume.

Actually, the funny thing is my impression was that he opened casinos. Okay. But the reality is he opened hotels and

And in order to be function, uh, you know, economically viable in Atlantic city, he had to have casinos in them. Okay. But the thing is that I didn't know of any way a person could open a casino in that proximity to New York city because Atlantic city, uh, New Jersey is very close to New York city. Um, I didn't know how you could do that unless you were doing business with the mafia. Hmm.

It just made no sense to me. And that also is true of all of his building projects. I didn't see any way that he could possibly be a successful developer in Manhattan and also Chicago without having dealings with the mafia because they control. But your instinct is correct. He is. He was connected to the mafia. He even used a lawyer. So we know this. This is old.

Well, I didn't know that there were any connections. It just seemed to me logical that there would be. Yeah. So true. The difference though, is because there are a lot of honest business people who have to deal with them because there's no way around it. It's kind of like, you know, the black market in, in any, uh, Eastern black country, you know, they, uh,

You have honest people selling things on the black market, even though the black market itself is illegal. And that's because there's only one way to get food in some of those places, and that's to go on the black market. So it doesn't necessarily imply that the person involved is involved in an illegal way. It may be that it's just for practical reasons the only way to get something done. And in New York, I would say that every single developer who does any project of real scale is

has to have made a deal at some level with the mafia because they control all sorts of aspects of that business. So,

So it doesn't necessarily make Trump a bad guy, but it does mean that he's got an association of that, you know, might make him a bad guy. It makes the system a bad guy. But there are things in Trump's past that are questionable. But it doesn't matter because I've seen very few angels in the scene of politics. And sometimes I think many voted Trump because they wanted a fire torch into it.

into the whole thing. But let's just agree now to get us back on track that you were actually a mainstreamer because the mainstream people aren't overtly interested, overly interested in politics. They are busy with their lives, right? Right. So, yeah, many of them go by what they've seen in the headlines, etc. So, you weren't like a political junkie. You had all the priorities in life and your choices at that point led you to be a

In favor of voting Trump. So that's and now you had this Commission on your hands. Let's let's pick up the story. Hang on. Yeah, let me let me just finish my thought there though, because the the point is that At the time he came in in 2016 I would vote for him only because he was Republican right? Okay And in fact, I didn't vote for anybody because again, it was difficult to do from the Netherlands But yeah, I was able to vote I would have done it in yeah

you know, I would have voted for him, but not because of who he was. It would have been just a party thing. I didn't really care who was the Republican candidate. I would have voted for anybody who was. So you were in that big minority of actually a New York Republican. Yeah. Yeah. Interesting. So anyway, the thing is, though, that in his first few days of office, unlike George Bush,

He actually did the stuff he said he was going to do. Or tried anyway. And that was really important. And he kept on doing it. And that impressed the heck out of me. So in Bush's case, I suddenly had doubts about him after he got into office. But in Trump's case...

all of the pictures that the media had painted of him suddenly looked false. So this is like when science tells you something's impossible and then suddenly you see an example and you know it's real. And all of a sudden, nothing that those scientists say looks credible anymore because you know they're wrong about something big. And that is something that I think is very important to say because if it hadn't been for that,

I wouldn't be a Trump supporter. I would just be a guy who votes Republican. There's a big difference. Right, right. So now I am a Trump supporter, and the reason is because he did what he said he was going to do. Anyway, so now what I'm doing is I'm writing about this subject, and I'm expecting all the riots to go away when Trump wins, except he doesn't win. But the way he didn't win didn't make sense, okay? That you have to explain. Yeah. I was looking at the returns, and I was just thinking—

Mathematically speaking, I don't see how this could have possibly occurred. And on top of that, there were a lot of election day shenanigans going on that at the time they were happening,

I didn't fully understand and I didn't pay lots of attention to them because I felt like it was all immaterial. Trump was going to win no matter what. So I didn't feel a need to focus on it, right? Yeah, it makes sense. But after the results were announced, I started looking at those things a little bit more carefully and I saw, holy cow, they were committing fraud right in front of our eyes, right and left. I mean, everywhere they were committing fraud. We all have heard about these claims and there's been court cases, etc.,

But you said first now that the numbers didn't add up. Could you explain to us why you felt the mathematics didn't jibe before you actually go into it?

Pennsylvania is a state, by the way, that has six and a half million people or rather who had six and a half million people who voted in that election. And I knew that. And I also knew that the amount of votes that have been counted were something like 90 percent. So 90 percent of six and a half million is leaves you with a leeway of about 700000 votes. Trump's lead was almost 700000 votes.

So what that meant is about 100 percent of the uncounted votes, which amounted to nearly a million, would have to be in Biden's favor for him to win. That was the only way he could win. And that just seems statistically unlikely to me. And my I have I have a rule that I call the 100 percent rule. And what that rule states is nothing is 100 percent. There is an exception to everything, no matter what it is, even in a Mercedes Benz auto factory situation.

You're going to get a door every once in a while that comes out faulty somehow. Right, right. It doesn't matter what the subject is. It's a law of nature, isn't it? Yeah, nothing's 100%. So the only way Biden could win that I could see is if 100% of the votes went for him, the remaining votes. So we are now talking about those who vote before the election or by post, by mail, right? Yeah.

That's what we're talking about. Yeah. OK, so he would have to get 100 percent of those as well as 100 percent of the remaining in-person votes. OK, he just have to get all of them. Now, if I had sat down with a pad and paper and a calculator, I might have discovered that he needed 93 percent as opposed to 100. But, you know, sitting there in my blankets, you know, trying to get to sleep and.

I was just doing a little mental calculation. It seemed he had to get a very, very high percentage of the votes. And it was too high to be credible, in my opinion. But did you know then or even now that it would be most likely a majority of Democrats voting those kind of ballots because...

the Democratic Party and courage. Yeah, I fully expected that. Yeah. Okay. Yes. Okay. Yes. But the thing is my a hundred percent rule applies there as well, because at the same time that a majority of those votes are likely to be Democrat, not all of them would be because you'd have Republicans that vote that way as well. So, so my a hundred percent rule applies on both ends of this. Number one, he can't be expected to get a hundred percent of the votes and

And number two, 100 percent of the absentees are not going to go for the Democrats.

And in reality, it looks more like about 30 percent of absentee votes are are Republican. OK, so for him to get 100 percent, it just doesn't make any sense. But the stuff I was looking at at first was like, for instance, kicking election observers out. That is a huge red flag that essentially means somebody's cheating because you only get rid of those guys if if you want to hide what you're doing. And I would say that.

Based on a strict reading of American law, that all by itself invalidated the election when that happened in Wisconsin or Wisconsin.

I always get Wisconsin and Michigan mixed up. It was one of those two states and Pennsylvania. But they did it in two of the biggest states where they kicked the election observers out. And that all by itself, as far as I'm concerned, made all of the results wrong. That's what we in Third World War or in other countries, if that happens, then we declare it undemocratic or like, yeah, that's not supposed to happen in democracies. But let me ask you.

These states presumably do not have election machines then, because I don't understand all this hard work to, you know, why remove observers, etc. If they have machines, they can do it the old school way, just rig the machines. So is it true that it was actual hand ballots we're talking about? Well, you have to hand a ballot in to get it into the machine. But what they seem to have done, and I say seem to have done because I haven't researched this

independently. I'm kind of accepting what other people have done on this subject. But the way it seems to have worked is they had something called adjudication, where if the voter's intention isn't clear, they did what they called handed off the ballot to adjudicate it, right? And what this meant is that the ballot went to a human being who would then enter the

the voters intention as they interpret it into the machine. Okay. So if, if you have election observers, they could object to that. Okay. They could object to, to who those votes are being cast for. But if you kick them out and you put these guys in rooms that don't have any video cameras, they can actually take a pile of a thousand record of ballots and

And they can make them all Biden votes. It's horrible. Who are these people, by the way, who can't? Are they hired to do this? Are they belonging to your party? You have very few people are, well, you have volunteers. You have volunteers in elections in America. And they tend to be, they occupy a number of roles. So they can be a poll watcher. But poll watchers tend to have a connection to politicians.

political party. So actually they always do because they have to have one from the Republican and one from the Democrat Party. Only those two? In some cases. I was just going to say in some cases they can be from another party like Libertarian or the Green Party or the Socialist Party, but those two have to be represented. Okay. And if they're not, as far as I'm concerned, it's illegal. Okay, right there. And that was definitely the case.

Uh, but then they also have people who, um, just direct people in line, you know, this is where you go to, uh, to, uh, cast your ballot. And those guys are volunteers. Um, they probably get paid something, you know, small, like a hundred dollars for the day or something like that. And those are just regular citizens. They don't get very much training and, uh, you know, they, they don't get their hands near anything that could compromise an election, but

But then what you have is you've got the people who are the adjudicators. They can have a strong effect on the election. OK, you also have the people who are tallying the votes. They can have a strong effect on the election to the tabulators themselves are curious because they had so many tabulator failures that.

They may as well have not used the tabulators at all. And personally, I think that they shouldn't use any electronic means to count ballots. I think it's ridiculously unnecessary because the way they... They'd be proven to be ineffective and even hackable and all that stuff. Oh, they're super hackable. Yeah.

But the thing is that it's unnecessary anyway because you don't need high-speed counting. A human being is capable of counting these things fast enough. And you might say, "What are you talking about? You have 150 million people." No, no, no, no, no. Here we count them by hand and we get the election results before you. We don't even use machines. Yeah, well, we can do it too. The thing is in America what we do is – I'm going to just tell you how we divide a state for voting, okay? The country is divided into 50 states.

Each of those states is divided into what we call counties. In the Netherlands, they call it a stad. And then each of those counties is divided into what's called precincts. And I don't know what you would, I guess you could call that a neighborhood. And the precincts usually have 500 or less people in them. Okay. There are, I think, three precincts in New York that

that have more than that. One has 4,000, one has 2,000, two have 1,000, and just about all the rest out of 13,800 precincts have 500 or fewer people on them. And it's really easy for just a couple of people to count 500 ballots in an evening. It's not hard at all. So, and then if you send those up a level,

And you group those in groups of 500 also. You only have to go up two levels to get the whole thing counted in one night. It's by just a few people. It is not hard to do. There's no need for these mechanical devices in any event. So I saw the overt signs of what I interpreted to be an attempt to commit fraud. That would be the, you know, the kicking people out of polling stations and

And a few other things like, you know, the fake reports of burst water main in in Georgia that caused poll watchers to get kicked out. But then a few people, four people went back in and continued counting while nobody else was around. And based on video, it looked like they were counting the ballots multiple times, the same ballots. So there were things like that happening. And at the same time.

When when people were being notified that this was going on, officials, you know, like judges and so on, they were saying, we don't want to look at it. And that was another sign something was very suspicious because they should have said, yes, let's look at it, because even if it turns out that what they're doing is innocent, they're

by not looking at it, you create the impression that it's not innocent. Okay? So you kind of have to look. And they weren't willing. And that did create the impression in my mind anyway that something fishy was going on. I mean, I don't know about you, but whenever I see something that...

that looks wrong. Uh, like let's say I see a guy walk out of a grocery store carrying two bags of money. Okay. And he looks like he just walked out of a gutter. I'm going to think maybe that guy doesn't own that money. Maybe he just robbed the store and I might just mention it to a passing police officer. Hey, you know, that guy, it's kind of funny, but he, he,

He was shuffling into that grocery store five minutes ago and he came out carrying all these bags of money. There's no armored car in sight. You know, he doesn't look like he's connected to the store at all. And I've seen him meanwhile sleeping on the side of the street for the last three weeks. You might want to check him out. And the police officer says to me, no, you're a conspiracy theorist. I'd be like, you know what? The police officer now looks suspicious to me too. How dare you accuse my cousin? Yeah.

Yeah. So, I mean, maybe the guy is innocent. Maybe, maybe the money bags are full of food or something, you know, but, but the thing is, it's something that you'd want to at least look at. And the fact that nobody, no official wanted to look at,

Really bothered me a lot. So at some point after that, I'm not going to go into the details. I became aware of a group that was trying to audit all of the election results for that that election.

And I thought, well, let's just see what these guys have. I thought as a researcher with nothing better to do, I might as well at least check it out. Yeah, because of the COVID pandemic, nothing to do situation. Exactly. But wait a minute. A group...

What do you mean a group? Well, they call themselves America's First Audit. And I heard about them on the radio and they were looking for volunteers. They said you could sign up on Telegram. So if it's just concerned citizens, it wasn't connected to Trump or RNC or anything like that. OK. Right. However, you know, they likely had a lot of or probably a majority. Yeah. In 2020, of course. Yes, yes, yes.

It goes to what I call bias. They have incentive, right, to be interested, to find out. Yeah, they do. And I will tell you, and one thing I want to make very, very clear, I was interested in

in who won and not in making sure that I proved that Trump won. The fact is, the truth matters, okay? And if, for instance, if I'm playing a racquetball with somebody and I lose, I don't mind as long as I really lost. Of course. As long as you weren't cheated, obviously, yeah, naturally. Right. On the other hand, I've played, I love racquetball, and I've played racquetball games

Where the guy I'm playing thinks I won a point and I know I didn't because I had a better view of the ball Right, and I'll stop the game. I'll say look you you got that point or if he insists that I did I'll say let's just play it over because I don't want to win No, that's not fun in an underhanded way either So if Trump got the if Trump had won that election, but I thought there was fraud I'd still be interested in in figuring out what happened. Yeah, and

Because I don't want to take a victory that isn't earned. I think that's a despicable thing. I think it's just as despicable for the people who commit the fraud as for the people who accept the fraud on their behalf. Yeah. And it's averse when we talk about elections than in a game because here we're talking about, yeah, the heart, the roots of democracy, the very nature of democracy. Yeah.

So go. Yeah. I mean, so if we had really elected a socialist, even a communist as president, although I wouldn't like it if the majority of the people really had voted for that person.

I wouldn't be complaining. I mean, I'll complain about the person that became the president, but I wouldn't complain about the election to try to get rid of him. You see what I'm saying? Or maybe it's policies you would complain about, unless he was a scorable person, of course. But I wouldn't be saying, you know, you guys faked the election, because if it was transparent that he won, then there's nothing that you can really say on that score. So that would be fine. Yeah.

So what I'm seeing is a bunch of outward indications of fraud. Numerically, the Pennsylvania result made no sense to me. And then secondarily, when you're kicking poll watchers out, that's another indication fraud occurred. When you've got vans pulling into the tabulation centers at four o'clock in the morning and dumping off hundreds of thousands of ballots that are now past the deadline to be counted.

That's suspicious. There are a lot of things like that happening and I I'm not going to try to go through a list of them because there's Thousands of them it was just happening across the country everywhere. There are so many indicators of fraud. I really wanted to look into it now, I didn't know what I could do to help and to be quite frank

My goal in contacting America's First Audit was really not to say, I'm going to help you guys out. I'm going to spend months and months and months of my time. I'm going to give up my whole life to study this for you. I was really thinking I'm going to contact them just so I can see what they have to see if that works.

confirms or works against the theory I'm developing that there is something fraudulent in the election. I was really looking at it as kind of like dipping into a convenience store to see if they have the magazine I'm looking for. If they don't, I walk out. And if they do, I'll take a quick look at it and then I'll leave. I was not looking at having a long or enduring commitment to them. But nevertheless, that is what occurred. So I went ahead and I contacted the New York chapter and

And they immediately asked me to be research director. And I didn't want to because the fact is I needed to make money. I had already gone something like six months without any income or with very little income, because although I was paid to write for the law enforcement publication, they didn't pay very much. On account of the pandemic, right?

Well, I was writing for them because of the pandemic, but they don't pay me. No, I mean that you didn't have any income because of the pandemic, right? Yes, yes, exactly. Yeah, I had just gotten my first photography assignment, which paid the right amount of money, and then nothing, and it was impossible to get new ones. And actually, another thing I'll say about that is that eventually the pandemic restrictions were gone, and

And the studios opened up again and the crews became available again. And I made a conscious decision not to go back to work doing photography. And the reason was because

The the country had become so polarized by then politically that I was worried that I that somebody I was working with would find my articles online about law enforcement and it would ruin my reputation. Because then I wind up in an argument with someone, you know, I wouldn't start anything like that. But if someone, you know, noticed it and started asking me questions, I'd.

The next thing I knew, it would be the equivalent of a Jew in Germany in 1936. Right, right, right. Is that bad, huh? Wow. Yeah, it is. And I thought it would be safer...

to wait until all this blew over, and then I could go back to doing the work I really wanted to do. So that was a choice on my part, but I think it made sense, and I still think it makes sense because... Yeah, it does. And I think the same will be true in the academic field, wouldn't it? Yes. There would be no way... The way I looked at it,

Even if I was able to get a job in education, and I'm very qualified for it, I've got a PhD, I've got 12 years of experience, and not only that, the program I co-founded was very successful. And I've also written books on the subject. There's just no way you could say I'm not qualified to do that work.

Also, I ran almost every aspect of the program. So I've had my hands in every level of the process of working in an institution of higher learning, short of being dean of the school. But I felt like even if I could get a job like that, I would lose it probably within six months. Because as soon as my writing on the subject of the riots in America were known, I was

they could let me go. And I didn't want, and since taking an academic job would almost certainly require moving out of state, I had no interest in, in, uh, going to all the trouble and expense of doing that only to do it again, six months later. So, so I felt that that was out as an option as well. So as far as I was concerned, I was kind of stuck with nothing to do and a lot of time on my hands. So I, uh,

reluctantly said okay to the research director position which by the way is volunteer so I'm not getting paid for it and I've never received a nickel for a nickel by the way as a small unit of money in America but I never isn't it sent it's not what you have the smallest unit but in America we use the word nickel for some reason it's just I heard about nickel and dime yeah

Yeah, a nickel is five cents and a dime is 10 cents. But for some reason, we use the term nickel instead of a penny when we're talking about not getting paid. I never received a nickel. Okay. So...

And I did that on purpose. OK, number one, they didn't have any money to begin with. But later on, when they did start getting money, I told them, I don't want to be reimbursed by you for anything because I want my research to be completely independent. Yeah. OK. I didn't like and actually a couple of times while I was doing the research, apparently it my research impressed some of the investigators I talked to so much that.

that they offered me jobs. So like the state police of New York, one of their guys said, we'd like to hire you as an investigator, a forensic investigator for the state police. And at the time, I didn't want to do it because although I did want to make a living, number one, I knew that the police in New York state were

had to get the COVID shot, which I did not want. And the other reason was that I didn't want my investigation to be corrupted by an institutional bias of some kind, because I had no idea of knowing whether it was true or not, but I didn't want to take the chance that I would accept that job. And then they'd say, we want you to do something else. We don't want you to investigate the election. We want you to investigate everything.

you know, this other thing and all of a sudden I wouldn't be doing what I wanted to do or if they did let me do it, they'd want me to do it in a certain way that would compromise the integrity of the investigation. I get it. Very good, very sound principles and amazing that you can afford taking those concerns.

most people can't, but it just goes to your credit. So great. Well, the only reason I could afford it, and I hate to put it this way, but it's because my mom died and left me her house, which I sold. And that was what I was living on was the money from that house. But that,

that went down very fast because it wasn't a very good house and it wasn't in a good location and the market isn't the best i assume well the market actually is very good but not where she lived uh she lived out in the middle of arizona and was surrounded by drug dealers so we're not talking about a fantastically expensive property that allowed me to live in a life of luxury that is not true there's always black rock ready to take over everything anyway so

Yeah. For a penny on a dime. So this is how I got started on it. Now, I don't know if the tale of, you know, the details of how I did the work are that important because I think that what I found is...

what eventually you want to do. It's not important here and now if it is available to the public via whatever links we're going to get to or reports or whatever. Yeah, well, I do have a blog. I mean, it has to be, we have to be able to vet it, right? That goes without saying. Yeah. Actually, now I don't know what I'm answering. Go ahead and ask me another question. No, so we're at the point now where you have accepted this position and you are starting to

Get your hands dirty and verifying or falsifying whatever is going on here. Yeah. Pick up the story from there. Okay. Well, so the first thing that happened was the lady who was in charge of the project for New York State, her name is Marlee Hornick, but she was going by her username, God's Goats, at first. And everyone was asked to use an alias because they were worried about people doxing us, right? Yeah.

So I took the alias Art Zark, which was my version of like arts arc, right? A-R-T apostrophe S. And the way I was thinking of it was, you know, I'm an artist, right? So I'm art.

And then Noah had his ark, which saved all the animals. And I was thinking, well, if we can discover this election fraud, maybe we'll save all the animals, right? So that's where that came from. And then I just shortened it to Ark, spelled with a Z. So it's A-R-T and then Z-A-R-K. And she called herself God's Goats. But later on, she told everybody what her real name is. So I don't mind saying it now, which is Marley Hornick. And she's a singer, by the way. Mm-hmm.

So she said to me, what can I expect from research? And I said, well, first off, we need something to research, which means we need documents of some kind to look at.

And at the moment, we don't have any. And the kind of documents that other states have, not only do we not have, but we're highly unlikely to get. So for your listeners who aren't American, I'll just explain something here. And that is that New York has a reputation as being the most liberal state in the entire United States. OK, even more than California.

That would be our only competition, but yes, it's reputed to be even more liberal than California. And the reason it's reputed to be even more liberal than California is because Ronald Reagan came from California. And Ronald Reagan is not a liberal. That's really the only reason. Otherwise, I'd say they're about equal. And I think it's arguable which is more conservative than the other. However, I'm just going to give you a kind of a spoiler right here.

After two and a half years of research, I am no longer convinced that New York is the most liberal state in the country, nor am I convinced that New York is liberal at all. Okay. I have a feeling that's an illusion that has been created using a combination of public relations and literally lies. Okay.

I'm not saying it's definitely a fault, but I think that there's reason to at least investigate whether it's true. Does that make sense? Yeah. Okay. So I no longer accept it as a given. So anyway, the reason I'm mentioning the fact that New York is liberal is that it means the

The courts in New York are less likely to be friendly to document requests than they would be in a more conservative state. OK, because all of their judges are appointed by liberals. And when I say the Southern District is is infamous.

I mean, I can hear throughout this interview that you are still operating in a left-right paradigm. Now, just full disclosure for you, the listeners know this, here we are more concerned about...

You know, at the one hand, the Uniparty, this establishment, the centralist powers, the handlers for the oligarchs, whether they come as neocons on the so-called right or neolibs on the so-called left. And on the other hand, the populists, populism, the people, decentralization, autonomy, you know, people's resistance to this new global tyranny that is ceasing. So that's where I'm coming from. And in the Southern District of New York,

Man, they are corporate. Man, they are corrupted for the oligarchs. I won't give examples now because I'm distracting from your story, but I just want to put it out there that I completely understand what you're saying and back up what you're saying. And there's evidence for it. Yeah. Yeah. And actually, one thing I want to tell you also about my perspective on this, when I'm when I'm saying what I say to you, sometimes I'm

I'm not giving you my perspective so much as I'm telling you what the situation is where I am. Right. And how you thought about it then, right? That's an important distinction, too. That is also an important distinction. Because you've been on a journey of awakening, right? Exactly. So I've definitely learned things that have altered my opinion. Like, for instance, when I started this...

I was kind of disappointed that the only data I was going to be able to get had to do with New York because I assumed, I literally did assume this when I started, that there would not be fraud in New York. Okay. Mm-hmm.

The reason I assumed it is because I believed that New York really was a liberal state. And I saw no need to take the extreme risk of committing fraud to ensure victory when the victory was assured regardless. In fact, that should that brings up a very interesting point, which is.

If New York is so reliably Democrat, why would you commit fraud? If you do commit fraud there, that means you don't believe it's reliably Democrat yourself. Yeah. Okay. That's my opinion. Okay. And that's why I asked you if there were swing states because that's where they would bother to do it. Yeah. Yeah. There are several of those. So in any event, but New York is not considered one of those. No.

I now think it is. But at the time, I didn't think so. And it usually isn't described that way in any event. So there I am. And I said to her, we can't get the documents that they got in Arizona or Colorado. And the reason is because.

Those were, in Arizona's case anyway, a fairly conservative state. And so they could be expected to find at least a few sympathetic courts or judges or prosecutors that would allow them to get the documents they needed. And that would be access to the machines, which they actually got in Colorado. They got access to the computers that were tabulating the results.

In Arizona, they got the ballots themselves. They were able to look at those. So there are all there's also something called tabulator tapes that they got in other states. There are a bunch of different types of evidence that had to do with the election itself.

that were accessible but I believed would not be accessible in New York because you would really need a friendly judge or yeah it really came down to a judge you'd need a friendly judge to get it and I just thought what about Pennsylvania that started the whole thing for you uh yeah Pennsylvania looked really crooked to me uh by the way from what I've learned I now believe New York was

the second crookedest state in the entire country. That doesn't mean it was, it just means based on the states I've researched, New York comes in second place to Pennsylvania.

But were there any chance to get documents from Pennsylvania? No. No, no. No. No. Well, I was – but that's mainly because I was working on the New York team and I was only going to get material that was relevant to my area. But couldn't a local chapter in other states get them and then you could share across the states? Yes. Within organizations? Yes, they can. And actually, I'm going to – you're kind of preempting me here a little bit because of –

It's okay. Eventually, I did get access to other states, okay? Okay. But when I was starting out, number one, it didn't occur to me as a possibility, but it also didn't occur to me as a necessity because I wasn't there to research those states. I was there to research New York. Right, okay. So although it was certainly possible and eventually it did happen, it wasn't the first thing that happened or the first thing that I did, okay? Mm-hmm.

So what I decided to do is go for what we could get. And I knew that the public records access to certain records made it possible to get the voter rolls. OK, that was the easiest thing to get. And so I said, let's go for the voter rolls. And you are going to have to have your guys do that for me because you've got a team set up to make the FOIL request because this is a legal request.

And it should be done by people who are trained to do it so that it's worded properly and you get what you want. Right. So they had a team doing that. They'd actually already asked for them. So so we had to do is just wait until we got the voter rolls.

Now, I didn't know what we would find in the voter rolls, but the one idea I had had to do with something I heard from other researchers, and that was something called phantom voters. Now, I don't know if you're familiar with the concept of a phantom voter, but what that is is it's a registration record for a person that doesn't exist.

So then what happened... So not a dead person, but a fictionist person. A fictitious person, yeah. So what happened is that a ballot would be generated in that person's name as an absentee ballot...

And by using that false registration. And wait a minute, that's possible because you don't have to show any ID when you vote, right? You can just show. Well, it's also possible because you don't have to show any ID when you send it in through the mail because they had just made it possible to do mail-in votes, right? So that's an obvious vector of fraud. So my primary concern there was whether we were going to find fictitious voters. Now,

The interesting thing is that while I waited for the voter rolls, I found the official election results online. So this is you could download them. You could download them today if you wanted. And so I downloaded the official results and I was taking a look at those. And I in one of my very first team meetings, maybe the second or first, something like that.

I happened to mention one of the numbers from the document that I downloaded. And somebody on the team corrected me and said, oh, you made a mistake with this particular number. And it was for, I think it was Orange County in New York. And I was embarrassed. I assumed that my colleague was correct, that I really had made a mistake. And I felt kind of bad because as research director, I wasn't supposed to be making easy mistakes like that. Mm-hmm.

So anyway, so I went back to my documents because I wanted to just verify it. Also, because I didn't I couldn't see how I would make the mistake. And when I looked at my documents, I saw that I was correct. So I contacted my colleague and I said, nope, you're wrong. Sorry. And she said, no, I just checked my documents. I'm right. And OK, so now we've got kind of an interesting situation going on. So I said, tell me, why don't you do this?

Send me your document and I'm going to compare the two. And it turned out that we had independently downloaded the same document on different days and in between they changed the document. Now the thing is, this shouldn't happen because these are certified results and we both downloaded it about a year after the election was over, okay?

Not quite a year. It was more like 10 months. So it's 10 months later. So there is no way those numbers should be changing that long after the election. Make sense to you? Yeah. I hope after that point that you started to download them regularly just to see if they still are changing. Believe it or not, I did do that. But I didn't do it right away because other things sort of took my attention from that. But in any event...

Another thing that got noticed is when I announced to the team that, in fact, we have a discrepancy in these documents, but it's not our fault. It's the fault of whoever posted them on the website. Somebody else on the team pointed out, hey, you know what? There's a tab on there called revisions.

And I was like, what the heck? And I looked at it. It was an Excel document. And the first page, which is what I had been looking at, my colleague was looking at initially, just gave the results. But there was another tab detailing revisions. And so I looked at that and they actually had recorded hundreds of thousands of changes over the course of about a 10 month period. Wait a minute. What about the so-called Wayback Machine? Could that pick up something in the past? Yes. Okay, good. And I did use that.

And I now know, based on the Wayback Machine, that a few things. Well, first off, I'll say that the election was certified on December 3rd of 2020, which is exactly 30 days after it was conducted on November 3rd, 2020. Okay, and that's a legal requirement. It has to be certified in that amount of time. But then they recorded their first revision on the same day. So apparently they certified it and then made a revision.

But then they made another revision the day after that and then more on the 8th and then more in, I think it was January and February, but there were 23 separate dates where

that they made revisions to this document. And excuses for these revisions? None. They don't say why. And many of the revisions are really small, but some of them are pretty big. You know, one of them was they added 12,800 votes to Biden. That was in, I think, Westchester County. And they also, the biggest changes were with something called blanks. And I still haven't got a straight answer for what those are, but I can tell you a variety of the answers I've been given. One is,

that when you open a precinct for voting, you bring a bunch of blank ballots with you so that when people come in, you can hand them a blank ballot that they can use. So that's one explanation. And they count those to make sure that none of them go missing and get used by somebody committing fraud. So that's one explanation. But another explanation that makes more sense in the context of the data is

is that it represents a vote, not the whole ballot, which is the paper that has all the candidates on it, but a single line of the ballot where it's like we're a single office like mayor or something like that. So if somebody doesn't vote for that particular race, it would be a blank. Or if...

if they have a mark that makes it unclear who they're voting for, like it's in between two of the circles you're supposed to fill in, or if you fill in two circles instead of one, that would still be counted as a blank because they don't know who it's for. So I think that's what it means. But what I saw was like in one county, they had 305,000 blanks were added to the official total. That's a lot. And in that particular county, that represented almost half, actually, I think it was a little more than half of the

of all the votes. So there were huge, the bigger numbers after that one, that was the biggest, but we're like 10,000, 20,000, 25,000 in various races.

And I didn't like seeing those numbers change after it was... Wait a minute. All this is for New York, right? Just for New York. Yeah. Go on. Yeah. Everything I say is going to be in New York, at least for now. But to see those kinds of revisions being made so long after the election certified, I was just thinking, this doesn't make any sense because...

The purpose of certification is to say this is the definitive, authoritative, accurate count. So if you change it later, that means that the numbers that were certified were not

the definitive or accurate count. Now, it may be, let's just take their side for a second. It may be that there are all sorts of boxes of ballots that they just hadn't noticed, or there were error categories that they had. Wait a minute. I heard that they are not, after it's certified, that won't matter. It won't be counted. It won't be included. But that's not how it is?

Well, apparently not, because they made all these changes to the document. And, you know, actually, I'll tell you another thing I found with the Wayback Machine and also just by looking at the website, the 2020 election is the only election I saw of any of the elections they had on the website that had a revision history.

None of the earlier ones did and none of the later ones did. But for 2020, they did. And that made it interesting as well, because it's like, what's so special about the 2020 election except for all of the allegations of fraud? And before I go too much further on that subject, I do want to say something, because I don't want anyone listening to this to have the impression that I believe that

that the 2020 election is fraudulent and no other elections are fraudulent. And I also don't want them to think that I believe that only Democrats commit election fraud. I don't believe either. I was planning to get to that later, but go on with your disclaimer. Yeah. So the disclaimer is this. Based on my research, I believe that there is election fraud in every election and there has always been election fraud in every election. And this goes all the way back to the days of the colonies.

So I've found evidence of election fraud going all the way back to Albemarle County in the 17th century in America. So I have no reason to think that the 2020 election is any different on that level, that fraud occurred. The other thing is, as far as I can tell, Democrats, Republicans and possibly other party individuals say,

commit fraud in every election. Okay. And on that basis, I have a hard time believing that any candidate wins any race without some fraud committed on their behalf. Yeah. The only consistency would be that it's always in the establishment's favor, whether the establishment is operating out of its left boot or its right boot.

Well, I've got to add a little color to that. But anyway, so the thing is, though, that I do want to clarify that this would be for major elections like for president or Senate or Congress. These are federal level positions and maybe even for state level positions like governor. But in really small elections, like for fire chief or sheriff, which is like a policeman, right.

In those elections, I wouldn't say that every one of those elections has fraud, although I also have seen plenty of evidence that many of them do. But that would be much harder to rig because the smaller it is, the more, you know, you can read the results and, hey, I voted for this guy and my neighbor too. And this, but there's no, it's not counted, right? Exactly. It's easier to discover. Yeah. But, but I mean, we do see fraud in those kinds of elections, but, um,

But I would not say that it happens every time, and I also wouldn't say it happens for both sides. But with the larger national or state-level elections, I do think it happens every single time. So let's look at Trump's 2016 victory. I believe he won, but I don't believe—

That no one, you know, cast fraudulent votes on his behalf. I believe that probably did happen. Yeah. I also think it happened for Hillary. I just happen to think that more fraud was committed for Hillary than for Trump and that he won despite the fraud she was committing. Yeah.

And I also think that it's in many cases quite possible that the candidates themselves have no idea that fraud is being committed on their behalf. But my bottom line point is I don't want anyone listening to this to believe that my impression is that the 2020 election was unique in that fraud was committed or that a lot of fraud was committed or that a single party benefited a great deal from this fraud.

So, as far as I'm concerned, the entire election system is broken and can't be trusted. So, that's where I'm coming from there. So, anyway. That makes sense. And I want to add that if we want Canada to win, which is threatening the establishment, let's say an RFK figure, then the only way that could happen in today's system is by a huge landslide.

I'm convinced of that. Maybe you think not even that is possible, in which case you'll have to enlighten us. But maybe we can get back to that. Continue. Yeah. So actually, the funny thing is I forgot what I was talking about before I gave that disclaimer. Well, I'll help steer you back. So it's this revision history, right? In New York. What was that? Revision history. I don't know why they... Oh, right, right, right. Yeah, thank you. I don't know why they bother to publish it. They just...

That's the thing. Here's another thing I'm going to say. I believe that we have honest people working in the election infrastructure.

I also think we have dishonest people who are either manipulating that from outside that infrastructure or within it. Again, my 100% rule applies. I don't think everybody in Europe is a crook or is working with nefarious intentions, but I also don't believe they're all honest. It's a combination, and the question really is the balance and also the weight.

because some people, you might have one bad apple in a group of 100, but if it's bad enough, it can poison the whole bat. On the other hand, you could have half of an organization is dishonest, but they're so inept, they are not very effective. So when I'm looking at this,

revision history, it seems to me that it's the honest thing to do is if you revise the numbers, you should publish that fact. But it does make me curious that this wasn't ever done in any other election that I could find. And that I think is really peculiar. So that was my starting point. But then the voter rolls started coming in. And here's something else that's interesting. Under American law,

Okay, and this is federal law. So every state has to comply with this including New York We can make what's called a freedom of information law request in other states It's called Freedom of Information Act, but in New York, it's freedom of information law and

And the state has to comply and so do the counties. So if we say we want your voter rolls, they have to give it to us. They're allowed to withhold certain information. Actually, they're legally required to not give us certain identification numbers, their driver's license number or their Social Security number, which is fine.

Because that actually has nothing to do with what we're looking at anyway. I don't really care about voters as people. I only care about what the data means in aggregate. So anyway, but they do have to give us the voter rolls. And a lot of counties didn't give us their voter rolls. So they were violating the law right there. And that made me curious. And you didn't have the resources to battle that in court or something? No, no. We had no money. None at all.

So anyway, I mean, remember, you know, you have these these states that are considered very poor states. They don't have very much money, but they're conservative. So so so their groups that were studying the election had plenty of money because they got lots of these small donations of like five or ten or twenty dollars and they were able to, you know, start lawsuits. But in our state, which has a lot more money available, none of it was available to conservatives. Right.

So we had nothing. Also, at that time, we weren't really looking for money. So that probably had a role to play as well. So I found that really curious that there were counties who had attorneys who had looked at our request and decided they were going to intentionally break the law by not satisfying the request because they had to make that choice. And to me, that's risky because that means they're saying they're more willing to

to defend a lawsuit and spend the money required to protect the

that data from going out, even though it's public data and they're not allowed to withhold it. Right. That I found really, really weird. So it's public data and there's no excuse that they could use that. For example, it would compromise some privacy thing or whatever. I don't know what. Well, here's the thing. They can say that. But the thing is, and actually, to an extent, it's true because it does give addresses of people and

But the thing is, is that under the law, they're not allowed to withhold it. They have to give it. It's true. And the law specifically mentions names, addresses, etc. Okay. So the fact that they weren't willing to do it, it was really peculiar, I thought. And it made me more suspicious. So after the revision history and after those counties refused those requests, and actually some of them didn't refuse them. They just never answered multiple requests, by the way.

And some of them sent lawyers letters that effectively were they were saying yes, but they were saying no. Like, for instance, one county, St. Lawrence County, had their lawyers send me a letter. And in it, he said, what you can do is you can make the seven hour drive to our county and.

and our registrar can show you the information on her computer, but you can't take notes and you can't tell anybody what you saw. And I was like, are you out of your mind? What meaningful analysis can I do in those conditions? Well, if you had photographic memory, maybe it could work. Yeah, well, even then, it's like you can't share what you learn. Are you kidding me? You can't share. Yeah, it was just ridiculous. So that was basically a no in the guise of a yes. Yeah.

Now, eventually, one of the people on the team managed to get the New York state voter rolls. Now, the state, by the way, has been very good about giving the voter rolls. Every time that we've made a request, we've got several different versions of it now.

they gave us the roles and I don't recall there being any real issue there. So wait a minute, so the problem was New York City or are you meaning that the state elections you could get it out for? Let me clarify. New York State is comprised of 62 counties. Of the 62 counties we eventually got the roles for 43 of them. So the remainder refused our request. That's 19 counties. That's probably where most of the shenanigans went on. Well, actually I kind of don't think that's the case. Oh wow.

And I'm not sure why that is. I find it rather puzzling, but I can't honestly agree with you on that one. But the state gave us their records. Now, the thing that's interesting about this is that under New York state law, and actually this might be federal law too, the state record is the official voter rolls and the county records are unofficial voter rolls, okay?

Now, the way the voter rolls are compiled is that the counties make the rolls. And then as they do it, and it's basically like if you if you registered to vote in a in my county today, you're going to get a vote.

that information would be entered into the county computer and the state computer at approximately the same time. Because when they hit the enter button, it's automatically sent to the state computer and entered into their database. And that would also be true if you wanted to change your address. So if you changed your address in a new county,

Then that would be transmitted to the state record and it would it would affect the state record. That's how it works Okay, so the state records should match the county records. It's supposed to be an instantaneous transmission So it's not like they wait to the end of the day or the end of the week to ship the records up It happens at the point of entry make sense to you. Yeah, okay So having the state records meant that all those 19 counties who had refused our individual requests are

had been bypassed, okay, which I thought was extremely humorous. And I actually kind of wanted to send an email to that one guy and say, ha, ha, ha, I got your roles anyway. So suck it or something, you know. I don't normally talk like that. No, no, no, it's human. Besides these bureaucrats, it seems like there are small kings on hills here.

Yeah. Anyway, go on. We all are on board with that. But go on. OK, so so anyway, so I wound up getting the voter rolls and there are a couple of things I discovered with the voter rolls right away. And by the way, when I say I discovered I want to be really clear about something I had. I had a team who is helping me. But the thing is, is that there was like one guy who did more work than anybody else.

And then there was me who did probably about the same or more than he did because I was the only person who was actually I did more because I was full time. But but most of the stuff that was discovered was discovered by a really small group of people. And and generally what it was is that it was like me as as a driving force and.

And then there was another guy who is really good at spotting things. And then every once in a while, there was a lady who would come up with something.

But when I say I discovered, do keep in mind there is a team and it's possible that, you know, something from one of these other people was a part of it. OK, so I don't want to take all the credit. But I will do that when it's appropriate. But in some of these earlier things, I think there are more like three people at least who are responsible for what I'm saying. OK. Mm hmm.

So one of the one of the first things was we discovered that there were there were indeed phantom records. OK, so we had people that really didn't look all that convincing. Like, for instance, there is a guy and I'm not going to use the real names. It's perfectly legal to use the real names as far as I know.

But as you're aware, if you read the news in America, our justice system seems to have disappeared and been replaced by an evil form of it that is doing things that are outrageously illegal. So I'm just going to use fake names. OK, so there's this one guy or in this case, I'm going to use a name, but who has an address in Brooklyn, which is in New York City.

And he had 11 registrations and they all had the same registration date, but the same birth date, same full name, same address. Everything was the same except for the registration numbers. So he and you know, you have a county number and you have a state number and the state numbers were perfectly consecutive for the first eight. And then the next three were not consecutive. And the same was true of his county ID numbers. They were all consecutive for the first day and then they weren't after that.

And they were all made on February 19th and 20th of 2020, right? So...

Something I didn't realize until later, but was actually very interesting and led me to discover the algorithm is that the first eight were all on February 20th, but the next two were on February 19th. So the higher numbers were given an earlier registration date. And then the last one, the 11th record, was back to February 20th and had the highest registration number.

So that looked really peculiar. So I asked this other guy on the team to tell me how many times this had occurred.

Just so you know, the way I broke down the responsibilities, I tended to find things by physically going into the database and looking through it manually. And then I would hand it off to programmers and I would ask them to design queries around what I found so that they could find more of it. Because I couldn't check the whole database for this stuff. It would take too long because there's 21 million records. So that's what I did here. So I handed it off to somebody else and I said, can you tell me how many times this happened?

And although he came back with a number of around, I think it was six or 700,000, I was able to later determine that his query left out a bunch of things that it should have included. And so the real number was actually in the millions. It was about 4 million people had duplicated county ID numbers and there were about a million and a half that had duplicated, I'm sorry, not duplicated, they had extra duplicated

OK, so so they had about a million and a half had extra ID numbers for the state ID number. And that all by itself is illegal under federal and state law. Each voter is allowed to have one state ID number. And it's supposed to say. But isn't it isn't it very likely that the voter is unaware that this has happened?

Yes, I that's something that's extremely important. And I want to thank you for mentioning that. I do not believe that in most cases, I know of one where that's probably not true. But in most cases, I think the voters have absolutely no idea this has happened. And also based on the logistics of it, it almost certainly has to happen by somebody who has administrative access to the voter rolls themselves. Yeah. Otherwise, this would be a huge organic organization. Yeah.

Which is where we are. So I don't see any way that a voter could make this happen. Notwithstanding a bunch of them, right? Yeah. Somebody in the system can do this easily, but not you or me. So I do not believe that any voters are guilty of voter fraud because of this at all. I want to underline that and make that very clear. I do not think a single voter – I'm sorry. There is one voter who I think did do this on purpose. As always. That's 100% rule. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. So anyway, but for the most part, I think the voters are not responsible for this. I think it's the board of elections themselves or somebody who's operating either outside, but through the organization or inside. But they do exist. There's a lot of these. Now, most of them are one extra registration number. But before I get that, I want to talk about the law. The thing is, as far as the elections board is concerned,

Each number represents a unique individual, okay? Which means if you have two ID numbers, you can ask for and receive two absentee ballots, and that allows you to vote twice. That's why it's illegal. And to ensure that you only have one record for your entire life, the way they design it in the law, and this is explicitly stated in the law, it says if someone...

comes to re-register, right? Like they move to a different county, so they have to change the address, or they've gone out of state and then they come back, or they go to jail and they get out of jail, or they're trying to commit fraud by filling in an extra registration form. In any one of these situations, or in any situation where the

the person already has a record by law, they have to reject the application. What they have to do instead is update the existing records. So there are a lot of ways that they're supposed to, uh, a lot of steps they have to take to ensure that,

that a registration is new okay um so what they do is they first check your name if they find another record with your name they have to check the birth date if they find a record that has your name and birth date and you still say it's not you then they have to check the driver's license number and the last four digits of the social security number if after all those checks

They can they can determine that it's not you. They're allowed to proceed and make a new record for you. But if they find using any of those methods that it is you and it's a duplicate record, they're not allowed to go forward. They have to update the existing record. That's what the law says. OK, so it has an inbuilt clean up.

Situation and say that again. So so they built into the law a cleanup function, which obviously doesn't work Yes. Yes quite obviously and the reason this is so obvious is that I'm Performing the same check that they're supposed to do under the law in order to find these and I'm finding them Which means they're not doing that check even though the law tells them they have to okay, hmm

So I'm finding them. And that made me realize something that kind of surprised me. OK, and I was taking a shower one morning. This is just where I get a lot of my ideas. And I realized, you know what, if we've got a million and a half excess ID numbers, we're

Yeah, yeah.

And you might say, well, one and a half million is not enough to overcome that. Yes, it is. Because if you take them from one guy and give them to the other guy, it doubles the effect, right? It does. But it doesn't even matter. What matters is each state. And it's certainly because of the electoral college, not the plurality of votes. So if you have a million, are you talking about a million in New York now? One and a half million in New York. Yeah. That's, of course, that influences everything.

at least that state. It has the potential to influence because they have to be used that way. Yeah. So, so, so let's go on. So it occurred to me when I was in the shower, you know, looking at this data and if you've never done it before, I'm just going to give you a quick description of it. Yeah. The database has, has,

21 million records in it approximately. The first version was slightly under that and the new version is slightly over that. So I'm just going to say 21 million, but that, but it's basically a sea or an ocean of numbers. Okay. It contains all sorts of other information like names and addresses and so on. But for the most part, I don't really care about that. I'm only looking at the numbers. And in this way, the research I did in New York is different from

every other state. Okay. As far as I know, and I've actually been told this by other researchers, I'm the only guy who researched this in the way I did. Okay. Because like one of the things that other people were doing is they're focusing on the addresses. They wanted to see if the addresses were real, if the voter actually lived there, that kind of a thing. I was focusing just on the numbers and if, and whether they made sense. So I realized that if I plop

one and a half million fake ID numbers or excess ID numbers into an ocean of 21 million ID numbers, I'm never going to find them again unless I've got a way to tag them so that I can reference them later. Makes sense. And if I'm a bad guy,

And I'm doing this for nefarious purposes. I can't afford anyone else discovering that these are fake numbers or that they all share this common trait. OK, because that would make it easier for other people to find them. So if I if if somebody was doing something nefarious by making all these excess registrations, they

They would have to find a way to covertly hide them so that they could retrieve them whenever they needed. Does that make sense? It does. And if you break that code, you're golden, man. Yeah. And speaking of which, that's something I did that Alex seemed to have been somewhat impressed by. Oh, my God. Yeah, yeah.

So let's go on. And by the way, there's a caveat to that, too. I mean, there's like a disclaimer with everything, but but I'm not quite there yet. So anyway, so in the back of my mind now, I'm looking for that. I'm like trying to keep my eye open for it. And at first, you know, when I popped out of the shower, I did a quick check and it wasn't in any of the obvious places. It's not like they had a column saying these are fake and yes, no. Right. And there's just nothing like that. It has to be covert. And there weren't any tags that I could see.

So I was like, OK, fine, I'm going to put that aside for now. This is obviously not going to be something I'm going to find easily. Right. And then I went on and I had another idea. And that was when I looked at the law, I realized.

that for every registration that I saw, there had to be a corresponding paper application, right? So someone had to sign something that said, this is my name, this is my address, I am a U.S. citizen, and I attest that all of the foregoing is true and accurate, therefore I am a qualified voter, right? So I was thinking, how on earth

Does a guy with 11 registrations sign 11 papers on the same day and hand it into the same office and somebody processes all 11 and he gets 11 unique numbers, right? That didn't make sense to me. So I thought, you know, those papers are something we can get with FOIL requests. So I started talking about that with the lady who was doing the FOIL requests and

And she said, you can't just ask for this everywhere because how many do you think there's going to be? And I said, there's a million and a half of these. She said, there's no way we're going to get that. They're going to say it costs a quarter apiece. That's 25 cents.

to duplicate these records for you and the total bill is going to be like $600,000 and we don't have that money. So I said, so what can we do? And she said, let's... So wait a minute. So freedom of information requests cost money? Not usually, but sometimes they'll have what they call a document processing fee if you ask for a lot.

So, so like for the voter rolls in New York City, they charged, I think it was $300 for the DVD that they put them on. But most counties didn't charge anything. They just emailed it to us. And for the New York State voter rolls, I don't know if there was a fee involved in that or not, but they did give it to us on a DVD. So it's possible that they charged something there.

Some places charge $20. Some places didn't charge anything. It varies. But in any event, this lady suggested a different course of action. She said instead of asking for all of the names, which she said would almost certainly be rejected unless we're willing to pay a huge amount of money.

Why don't we ask for just a few and see how that goes? I was like, all right, fine. Samples, yeah, yeah. I want to add at this point, if you had someone with IT competence, I'm sure you could have developed some kind of software to look for, to look for a pattern, you know, to find that. Well, believe it or not, we did have a number of programmers.

But for whatever reason, this is going to sound self-aggrandizing, but it's not that way. It seems that my own internal method of finding patterns work better than any of our programmers' ability to come up with a way to look at it. A good detective will beat the machine any time of the day, of course. Yeah. You have the creative advantage. The few times we had people on the team independently come up with that kind of stuff, they never panned out, just so you know. Okay. Yeah.

Although, well, okay, wait a minute. No, yeah, that was one of my recommendations. A lot of times what happened was I would have an idea and I would send it to somebody else. I'd say, could you look into this? And then he'd find something. There was a lady on the team who did independently come up with some good stuff. And most of the time it was more...

It didn't have to do with programming. It had to just do with me saying, let's look into this. Okay, but don't lose your thread now. Yeah, so anyway, so I wanted to get these documents. And so what we decided to do was we'd pick a county that we interpreted to be friendly, meaning that they had a majority conservative government.

which means the sheriff there and the people on the on the elections board were probably going to be friendly to the idea that there might have been fraud. And so they were curious about it, too. And then we go with a small list. So I picked a county called Herkimer County, and they only had I think it was 70 or 71 of these people.

excess registrations. And at the time, we didn't have a way to distinguish the original registration from the extra registration. So I say 70, but it actually applied to, I think it was 31 people. So there were 31 people that had collectively 70 odd numbers attached to them. You see what I mean? Which means the number of excess registrations

numbers in that group couldn't be more than about 35, something like that. So that's a small number. Does that all make sense to you? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So we sent the request and they, they gave us the results and you know, the thing about it, it was kind of interesting. I said this to the foil manager when I said it, I said, look, the beauty of this is there's no way out. Okay. Because either they say we don't have the records or,

And and that way they're they're violating the FOIA law. And they're also saying that we violated the law that says we have to keep the records or they they have records, but they can't possibly show what they're supposed to show because nobody is supposed to have more than one ID. What about fake records? Yeah. So if they have records and they they are fake or, you know, or they made them up, there's just no way out of it. This is going to be bad. They can't they can't get out of it.

So anyway, we got the records and it turns out what they were, the XSIDs anyway, were photographic duplicates of each other. But they had unique numbers attached. And by the way, when I say photographic duplicates, I mean the signatures were all photographically duplicated. They were identical, pixel for pixel. However, to figure that out,

I had to run them through Photoshop. And the reason is because somebody, when they photographically duplicated these signatures, had also made a translation to all of them. So they were all scaled in one axis.

and slightly differently from the other axis. And as a result, it kind of stretched them out. So what you had to do, if you put them over each other, they wouldn't look the same. But if you unscaled it, they would be identical, pixel for pixel. Do you see what I'm saying? Yeah. So it was like somebody had thrown that transformation in there just to throw people off so that if they were doing a superficial check...

They would think, oh, these are not the same signature, but they really were. So the other thing was... This sounds very playbook and professional. It doesn't sound like a rogue. Yeah. Anyway, go on. Yeah. So the other thing that was interesting is that they all had been purged. The extra ID numbers were what's called purged, meaning they were made inactive. But they all had the same purge date, which just so happened to be two days before they sent them to us.

Okay, so what that means is our request notified them that these were illegal registrations. And so they purged them because we sent them that request. In other words, if not for our request, those registrations would have still been active because they were active at the time we sent the request.

And that meant that, you know, many of them, the people involved had multiple opportunities to vote in multiple elections. OK, so until it was purged. Say that again.

Until it was purged, right? Yeah, yeah. And I have to say, the cover-up is always what gives away any criminal conspiracy. Yes, exactly. Usually the act itself people get away with, but then the cover-up bongos it completely. It sounds like the same. Well, it gets a little bit more interesting. But before I get to that, I'm just going to say, so then we sent out requests like this for the other 61 counties.

But we didn't send requests for all of the records. We only sent for about 50, I think, in each county. And the reason was because of the quantity issue. We didn't want to get a bill for some huge amount of copying. But was it random which one you asked for? Pretty much. I mean, I was asked to give a tailored list of the best ones, and I was like, they all look the same to me. So I just went with the first 50 in most cases.

So then we started getting the results and most of them, they were the same. There were slight variations. Some counties didn't respond at all, so we got nothing. So New York City didn't give us anything.

But for the most part what we got was photographic duplicates of the signatures. And that's really bad. In some cases they actually look like they might have been a genuine signature in both cases. But the thing that was interesting about it was it revealed that they knew it was the same person even though the ID numbers were different. But wait a minute. Are you supposed to get original documents? Aren't you supposed to get copies?

Um, yeah, but okay, let's put it this way. If you have a driver's license, as I assume you do. Yeah. And you also have, I don't know if you've, you've probably signed your name somewhere else, like for your bank card, you have a bank card that you had to sign your name to?

Yeah. Passport, everything. Yeah.

Right. Okay. So what I'm saying... But they are different because they are signed differently at different occasions, right? Exactly. So what I'm saying is that the signatures on these documents... So you'd have a document for a person with ID number one, let's just say, and then another document for a person with ID number two, and the signatures are photographically identical. You see what I'm saying? Yeah. That's not supposed to be the case. No. Because what it does...

Is it proves it's the same person. And if it's the same person, they can't have the same ID number or different ID numbers, but they do. But one quick question without you remember where you are in the story. If they do it like this, wouldn't it mean that there will be much more votes than there are voters? Yes. But there is a how should I say this?

There are people who don't vote. OK, there's a pool of people who just don't vote and they can use the gap created by those people who don't vote to fill it with fake votes. Do you see what I mean?

So then they are limited. That's where I wanted to go because then they are limited. That's why I said a landslide could work because they are limited then to like if you have a million voters, you cannot put in two million votes. But if half a million votes, you can fake it up to a million if you want to go for 100%. That's not clever. Yeah. However, what we've got going on with the border down at Mexico right now could completely destroy what you just said.

Because there are all sorts of states right now, including New York, that are... Can they vote? Well, they should. According to the Constitution, they can't. But there are states who are independently saying they can. And now the thing is...

The states are not allowed to pass laws that violate the Constitution. However, they're doing it and they're getting away with it. So if we've got eight million illegals coming across the border and they're filling the voter rolls and they don't know anything about voting and other people are voting in their name...

It would be very hard to stop that from happening. So that's why they want to give them voting rights. Yes. But if they're undocumented, how can anyone know their name? That doesn't make any sense. Well, they're undocumented at the point they cross the border. They become documented as soon as they cross the border. Oh, okay. So

So anyway, getting back to the story. All right. So so I'm looking at these these having all been purged on the same day just before they sent us the information, which meant that all those records are simultaneously active up until that point, which meant that each of the people involved could have voted all those times, except for this one fact.

Those voters almost certainly had no idea that they had multiple active registration numbers that would have allowed them to vote multiple times. The only people who are likely to have known that are the people in the elections themselves. And they could have used that to send absentee ballots wherever they wanted in order to vote in those people's names. That could have happened. All right.

So I was curious about this. So I said, what about we send somebody to talk to these voters in that county? Okay, so we did it. Mm-hmm.

And we found out that number one, they were really shocked that they had multiple active registrations. But then... I bet all the people you alerted are going to exploit that in the future. Well, in this case, they can't because they were purged. But one thing that was very interesting was a story told to us by one woman who had three registrations in the same county. Now, according to her records...

She registered in 2020 in March, March 7th and 8th of 2020. She got three registrations. OK. And so she was asked, did you register on March 7th and 8th, 2020, three times? And she said, no. She said, OK, so did you register three times? No, I registered once. How did you register? And she registered using something called the motor voter law, which effectively means that

When you get your driver's license in America, there's a line at the bottom that says, you know, please register to meet a vote using the information on the driver's license application. So that's what she did.

And then she was asked, "Okay, so what about the date? Did you do this in March of 2020?" And she says, "No, I registered to vote in 2021. And just so you know, I was pregnant when I registered to vote, and this little baby in my arms is that baby. And he's one year old right now, and this is 2022. There's no way I registered to vote in 2020." But because she was registered in 2020 three times,

She was eligible to vote three times in the 2020 election, but she had no idea. How do you like that? That was interesting. So that meant that they were registering people without their knowledge. Okay. People who hadn't even registered to vote yet were getting registered. Okay. Now the thing, the question that came to mind though, when I said that and may come to some of your listeners mind. So I'll, I'll describe this is whether, um,

somebody registered her in 2020 or if somebody put the wrong date later. Okay, because I mean we're seeing manipulation of the data quite a lot and maybe they put the wrong date in. I can't answer that but I can say that the advantage comes from actually registering her in 2020. I don't see the advantage putting in a false date a year later.

And certainly giving her three registrations at the same time doesn't give her gives her the ability to vote multiple times. But she doesn't know it. So the only people who can do it are people who know that it's there, which, again, brings us to our pool of fishy looking registrations. So that was an issue. But then we sent people to knock on the doors of people who had like 11 registrations or 22 registrations or in one case, 25 registrations.

As far as we can tell, none of those people existed at all. So it's not like there was one person whose data they took in a case of what amounts to identity theft to create extra registrations. These people literally had no trace. There is no record of these guys. The people who were at those houses absolutely denied that anyone with that name was known to them and certainly had never lived in their house and certainly not in the previous year when they were said to have been registered. So these were absolutely fake from start to finish.

And now I'm going to tell you about the one guy that I think is

had to have known what he was doing and was not in the elections board. I mean, he might have been in the elections board, but this seems to have been an operation from the outside as opposed to from the inside. This is the guy with 25 registrations. This guy was really hard to find. And this was definitely a group effort. The first guy who spotted him was a programmer. I had asked him to, you know, in the initial check,

to find the duplicate registrations or the excess IDs, I'd given him some search criteria. He'd added some of his own and he came up with this huge list. And this guy was on the list four times. But that was because he'd used certain criteria that limited it quite a bit. So then when he left the team, there's another guy on the team. That guy was doing something else for me.

And he came up with another list and this guy's name was on it eight times. OK. And at that time, I decided to use that guy's name to to study something else. OK. I wasn't really trying to find what I found. What I wanted to do is the guy who'd left the team had whose name is Daniel Daniel.

He was always complaining that maybe we're looking at people with really common names, you know, like John Smith. And, you know, even though it's unlikely that they would have the same birth date, maybe in a few cases it happens. New York's a big state. And we don't want to accidentally or, you know, misidentify someone as having extra IDs. We call them clones. We don't want to misidentify someone as a clone if really what it is is two different people that just happen to share the same name and birth date. Mm-hmm.

And so I wanted to test his theory with this guy who had the eight registrations. So what I did was I decided to check every person in the whole state that had the same family name or, you know, from your point of view, the surname. Right. So I looked up his family name and I found out that there were only 45 people in the entire state that had his family name.

And then I saw something that really shocked me. There were, uh, there were, uh, initially I found, uh, I think it was 21 had the same first name and the same family name. I thought, wow, that's amazing. Um, and then I looked at it more carefully. I was looking at the birthdays. I was like, oh, they're all different. But then I looked at them more closely. I was like, wait a minute. No, they're not all different. What it was is they had the same birthday, but they changed the years. So, um,

I'll just say his first name is Thaddeus. So this guy with the name Thaddeus appears 25 times with this family name.

And then the other 20 are all different names. And of those 25 that have the same first name, the birthday in 24 of them anyway is July 7th. And the 25th is something different from a different year in January. But those 24 are all July 7th. I was like, what are the chances that

that 25 people with the same family name are all gonna be born on the same day. That's just amazing, right? I mean, even if it is in different years. And then I took a look at the years and they were 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982. So all in the same five years, you get 25 people on the same birth date and the same family name. This is just ridiculous, right?

And then I took a look at the addresses. Every one of the 25 were in a different county. And that's also strange because people with the same family name tend to either live in the same county, sometimes in the same house,

And and or in neighboring counties. Right. They stay really close. So if you look up names that are less common as opposed to Smith, which is going to show up everywhere. But if you look at names where, you know, you've got 200 people from the same family, they're going to cluster in the same region geographically. Yeah. And this guy, it's like the 20 that didn't have the name Thaddeus.

were all in the same area. But the 25 that weren't were all in completely different places, right? It's just very weird, right? And one thing I glossed over is that another thing that looked weird about the records is that the spelling of the name was slightly modified in a couple places. So in one case...

a double letter was dropped in another case, one of the vowels was dropped and another case, a U was replaced with a V. Um, but you could tell it was all the same guy. And then one of the people on our team, I was talking about this with our team and, um, all the way at the end of it, like a two hour meeting, um, this, this gal on our team was quite sharp. Um,

I don't want to give her name because they're kind of touchy about privacy. But she came back literally right when I was hanging up. And she says, oh, by the way, I just found something. And I was like, okay, share it with us.

She had looked up the mailing addresses, and they were all the same for all these, including the guy who had the non-July 7th birth date. So what all of them had done was, at least the ones where they had a mailing address listed, because not all of them did, but of the ones that did have a mailing address, it was the same mailing address. And then she looked it up, and it turned out to be a rental mailbox in a shopping mall in this part of New York called Nanuet.

So that was pretty interesting. So we sent people to as many of the addresses as we could find. And we discovered in a couple of cases, the addresses were totally fake. One was a gas well. So it's there's no house there in America. The gas wells have to have an address in case there's like an explosion. So the fire department can find it. So they need an address that they can punch into their GPS. So but there's no house there. But this guy had registered to vote from a gas well.

And in another case, he had registered to vote from an office building that had been there since the 1970s. There was no residence there, so there's no legal residence for him to vote from. Another had been an art gallery for quite a long time. And one was a parsonage. So the priest who lived there – do you have parsonages in Norway? I think you do, right? You know what that is? No.

But it's the word I don't understand. Okay, so the Catholic Church, when you're a priest in the Catholic Church, the main priest gets a house for free. A parish priest.

Parish. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So but they have like a house that's like next to the church. Right. And that's where they used to in the old days, at least the priests. Yeah. Yeah. So so in America, we call that a parsonage. So so what was a parsonage? And the guy who lived there, the priest for the church at that time said, well, we've never I I don't know this guy's name. So let's go look in the records here because he had a registry in the in the house that showed every single priest or every person who'd ever lived in the house.

And went through the whole thing. The guy didn't exist, right? Another one was an apartment building with I don't know how many units because I didn't do this myself. But the lady who did told me what happened. So the door she knocked on was a little old lady. She was like 80 years old. And she said, I don't recognize that name. But I'll tell you what. I used to want to work for the FBI. And I'd still be willing if you know anybody who could help me out. But in the meantime, let's help you with this little investigation, why don't we?

And so she brought her over to the manager of the apartment complex and they opened up all these file cabinets, you know, all the old fashioned file cabinets, you know, they stand about head high and you open up all the drawers and they've got all the rental agreements in there. And they went through all of them. They spent hours going through every single rental agreement they had dating all the way back to long before this guy was registered. No record of this guy anywhere. As far as we could tell,

Oh, another address was like if it was a real address, it would be located between these two farms, but there was no space between the farms to put that address. Do you see what I'm saying? Yeah.

So there were two addresses that were literally fictitious. A couple were impossible. And the ones that were possibles weren't real because when we checked, the guy had never lived there. And the funny thing is a lot of the places that he was registered to, the people who actually lived there were named Jones.

So it was almost like somebody had looked up the name Jones and used that to find the fake addresses. And that would kind of make sense because Jones is the second most common last name in the United States. So it would kind of blend in for that reason. Do you see what I'm saying? Mm-hmm.

So I got curious about this and I wanted to see the signed applications for voter registration. I wanted to see what those look like for this guy because this was a little different from the other ones. The other ones, there was a voter. There was a real person that we could talk to and it turned out their information had been... This sounds like a ghost, like a completely invented person. Yes, exactly. Yeah. So...

So we got records back, but we didn't get them for all 25. We got them for, I think, seven. And the interesting thing about them is that all of them had the same mailing address, this post office box that I told you about, right? Actually, I shouldn't say post office box because it wasn't United States Postal Service. It was like a commercial rental box.

So it wasn't associated with the United States Post Office, but it was still the same mailbox. But some of the records in the voter rolls didn't have a mailing address. But we got records. We got the signature cards for some of those. And they did have a mailing address. And the mailing address was that same post box. OK. Yeah.

But the other thing that was interesting is that according to the voter rolls, this guy had never voted. But according to the records we got with the cards, he had voted. And voted plenty. Yeah. So the thing is that we now know for sure that.

that there are votes recorded for somebody that on the voter rolls say he never voted, which means we can't trust what the voter roll says when it comes to whether somebody voted or not. You see what I mean? On top of that, every one of those registration cards had the box ticked asking for an absentee ballot. So what that means, and I asked a county commissioner about this, he said that that guy would have been getting

a mail-in ballot for every one of these registrations automatically, just because he took that box. So for 25 registrations, he gets 25 ballots for every election. Okay. And this dates back to 2000 when he originally did this. Okay. Now some of the counties figured out that something was wrong with the guy and they purged his record. So if you go based on the, the registration date and the purge date, uh,

I calculate that he got no less than about 200 ballots over the time period that his various registrations were active, one of which, by the way, is still active. But he's a fake person. So the thing is, is that what I'm discovering is

is that I can't trust the information in the voter rolls because I'm seeing that the voter histories are false. I'm seeing the registration dates are false. I'm seeing that the names are misspelled in a lot of cases, so I can't trust the spelling of the name. Effectively, when I checked every single data field, I found that the only parts of it that looked at all trustworthy were the voting districts, which are irrelevant.

Anything that had to do with personal information of the voting, the voter, I couldn't trust. The only way to know if it was true was to contact the voter. Now, I don't know about you, but as somebody who's worked with data,

I don't think the voter rolls have very much utility if you can't trust anything they say. Does that make sense to you? Yeah. Yeah. And so that's another thing I would infer from this is that this isn't, I don't think it's even individuals corrupted or paid individuals who sit and does this. It sounds like it must be a computer program doing this. Yeah. I,

I agree with you. Now, I'm going to say one more thing before I get to the exciting part of this, because I'm telling you the boring stuff right now. Right. Okay. The devil is in the details, so it's good. For this subject, we have to go this route, because otherwise so many people will...

immediately dismiss it by all these things you now prevent them from using as dismissive grounds. So go on. Yeah. Oh, and actually, before I go any further, I want to say another disclaimer, OK? The New York State Board of Elections has posted a couple of attempts to debunk

this information. And so they say we're all wrong and we just don't know what we're doing, et cetera, et cetera. And I can go into that in more detail later, but I'm just going to say right now that their responses are a combination of, well, they're either very vague and don't address our concerns very well, or they're wrong, or they're partially right, or they're right about something that applies to a small subset of the data, but not all of the data.

Okay. But you are trained. If you ever discuss with skeptics, so-called skeptics, pseudo-skeptics, you're used to this kind of tactic. Yes. Yes, of course I am. But I just want you to know that I don't want to pretend that there aren't people who disagree with me out there. There are definitely people who disagree with this stuff. And I just want you to be aware of that. Okay. It's amazing that they even addressed it, usually ignoring it as they go to. But anyway. That was their first reaction or reaction.

their version of a readout. So anyway, getting back to this. So another thing was discovered and I have to give credit for this to one of the other guys on the team, Daniel. There was a really, really strange thing going on that meant that every time I mentioned a number to Daniel or he mentioned one to me,

it didn't match. So whatever I had on my side of the equation didn't match what he had on his side of the equation. So I asked him to track it down and figure out what was going on because I was thinking it might be similar to that revision history business that we discovered, right? Yeah. So when he got back to me, he had something really, really strange. And I'm going to describe it to you, but it is a really complicated thing that actually hurt my mind for a long time as I was trying to figure out what they did.

So New York City, to the rest of the world, is a single city. But to New York State, New York City is made of five different counties. Each county is huge. Like Brooklyn, Bronx, stuff like that? Yes, exactly. Brooklyn is actually Kings County. And then there's Queens County, the Bronx, New York, which is also called Manhattan, and then Staten Island, which is called Richmond. So there's five counties. Right.

and he discovered that the county records show that there were 254,713 votes that do not appear in the state records for the same people. So the thing is, let's say you had person, let's just say you have a county record that says you voted in the 2020 election. Your state record would show you voted in every other election, but not the 2020 election, okay? But the

The thing is, even though the vote is recorded on the county side, it still counts as a lost vote because the county record's not official. The state record's official. So, according to the state, you didn't vote, but we know you did because we see the record of the vote in the county. So, there's over a quarter million records like this in New York City where the votes vanished. They just disappeared. Wow.

Now, the thing about that that's fascinating, apart from the fact that that's enough to sway any of the Senate or congressional or lower level elections in those counties, the thing that's really fascinating is if you look at the total number of votes for the counties, they're not that much different between the county and the state records. So I'm going to use a metaphor for this just because it's easier to visualize.

So if you picture a school bus, okay, and it's got 20 passengers, including the driver, okay? The school bus crashes and eight people die. There are 19 survivors, okay? Right. So you start with 20, eight die, and there's 19 survivors. Tell me how that works, because this is what's going on in the voter rolls. Yeah. Do you understand the problem? Yeah, and I've seen that phenomenon in operation in other cities.

monkey businesses too okay it seems to be it seems to be a template just that's my point okay well yeah the explanation is that people got onto the bus after the accident so that's how the number goes up from 12 you have additional five people board the bus

So when I looked into it, and I'm not finished looking into it because it's very complicated to do, I was able to determine that they were able to come close to equalizing the numbers to what they should be by bringing in votes from other places. People who were not recorded as having voted in the county records for the county they were supposed to be from, but from some other county.

So I don't know where the advantage is, but I do know it's not good bookkeeping and it's certainly not transparent. And it absolutely could be used to cover up all sorts of fraud. Yeah. Okay. And it shows negligence at best. Yeah. Yeah. Of what they are supposed to. Yeah. So that was very peculiar. And it happens in other counties, but it was worse in New York City than anywhere else. In fact,

The majority of all the fraud, or I shouldn't say fraud, let's put it this way. The majority of the suspicious records

are found in the New York City area. So the five boroughs... You mean within New York State? Yeah. So out of 62 counties, there's about nine counties that are responsible for almost all of the suspicious records. Okay. There are a couple of really tiny counties that don't seem to have anything wrong with them at all. But that's good that you have a comparable control group, as it's said in science. That's good. Yeah. Yeah. Like...

Actually, I shouldn't say that there aren't any, there are no counties that have nothing wrong, but there are a few. Ah, the 100% rule again, huh? Yeah, yeah. There's a few counties that have almost nothing. So like Delaware County, I think it is, has the smallest number of suspicious records.

But then you know how it's supposed to look when it's actual error. Yes, exactly. And I would count it as an actual error in some of these cases. Whereas the quantity of it and the type of errors, I find it very hard to believe are really just errors when it comes to New York City. So, shoot, something flitted through my mind just now that I wanted to mention on this subject, but it doesn't.

It's already, you know, you know, the way to do it. Now you're aware of it. Now let go of it. Continue and it will come back to you. Yeah. Thank you. So so anyway, so these are the kinds of things that I'm seeing in the records, which are, you know, I think quite disturbing on their own, because what they mean is that the voter rolls aren't accurate. And the reason that's important is that under the law, they have to be accurate. Yeah. They are allowed an error rate. The error rate is one out of 125,000 records.

They've got a lot more errors than that because at that rate, New York State with 62 counties and 21 million records

They're allowed 68 errors total. So couldn't you overthrow an election result if they exceed the legal limited rate? Well, first off, I don't want to use the word overthrow, which is, I think, inexact and politically volatile. I mean, whatever juridical term you have for that. The correct term for that is to decertify it.

De-certify, that's it. Yeah, and I think that legally it should happen. I don't think that these elections can be legally certified given the current condition of the voter rolls. On that level alone, I think that's just impossible. They can't meet the law or they can't follow the law with the voter rolls and the condition they're in right now. So...

With all this going on, I've also started having meetings with people in law enforcement, so sheriffs and district attorneys. I've met some county commissioners, and I've gone over this data with them. And they have been able to, in a couple cases, explain some things that we really didn't understand because they had information we didn't have.

But they've never been able to fully explain any of the stuff that we've shown them. And they've actually, in some cases, admitted as much. They said, well, you know, this particular law that you didn't know about will cover this part of this error category you discovered. But it only covers 10 percent of the error that you discover. The other 90 percent is completely inexplicable. So to give you an example of that and one that comes up quite a lot, it has to do with January 1st registrations.

Now, I don't think of January 1st as a holiday, which is kind of amazing because it's a big holiday and you'd think I'm aware of it. But I just work through most of my holidays, so I don't think of them that way. So the thing is, is that I noticed that there were a lot of registrations on January 1st. And I happen to mention this to a colleague recently.

As if anyone bothers to go out January 1st and to do something. Yeah, well, and as if any of the offices are open, they're closed. So I happen to mention all these January 1st registrations. He says, yeah, that is peculiar that they'd register on New Year's Day. And I was like, oh, yeah, it's New Year's Day. That means it's a federal holiday. That means all the government offices are closed, which means it's impossible to register on that day.

Right? Exactly. And then I checked some other holidays and I found registrations on Christmas and July Independence Day. You know, basically every holiday they've got registrations. How sloppy, huh? Well, hang on. There is an explanation, but the explanation doesn't go very far. Okay? Okay. It's got legs, but they're short. Oh.

So the explanation is this. We have something in America called pre-registration. So let's say you're 15 years old and you just got your driver's license, right? You're allowed to register to vote when you get your driver's license, okay? So if you're 15 and you're signing the form that says, I want a driver's license, and then you sign also saying, I want to register to vote,

Because you're not 18 yet, which means you're not allowed to vote, you get what's called pre-registration. And what happens is on your 18th birthday, no matter when that birthday is, you're automatically registered even if the offices are closed on that day. Right. So if you were born on January 1st or on Christmas or some other holiday, and some people are,

That's how you would get that registration date. The problem is when I checked the birth dates against the registration dates in these January 1st registrations, I found that that explanation only worked for 5,000 records out of almost a million records.

But that's another weakness you could exploit to get to the root of things. Because if you stick to them... Because if you take a normal date, it's going to be so too many. But if you go for these weak spots, you have another way to bust them, you see? Because you have to weed, of course, the right ones out from the fake ones. But that's brilliant. Yeah. So anyway, so...

And I don't want to go into all the details because literally there's like 50 fields in the voter roll system and I have found ways to discover suspicious records. But you have published this, right? So people who are interested can check. Yeah, I've got a I've got a sub stack that I talk about these things. And I also published a journal article on this about the algorithm. So let's get to the algorithm. OK. Yeah. Hang on. Is that the most exciting part?

I would think so, yeah. Okay. Then I suggest we take a short break. Okay. I just need to relieve myself and fill up my cups. Okay. And when we come back, we continue with the story. Okay. That's fine. Yeah. In that case, I'm going to leave the mic for about a minute and a half also. Okay. Yeah. Okay. All of our files are free and will remain free. If you like to show, you can show support by donating $1 to help with expenses.

Just use the paid link on our webpage. Thanks.