The Air Vent reported on the whistleblowers report in Pima county Arizona some time ago. I can’t find the post or comment but I remember writing about it. The letter is here:
Please be advised the Pima County Recorder, located at 240 N. Stone Avenue in Tucson, Arizona, 85701 in Pima County, Arizona, and the Democrat Party added fraud votes. In the initial count of the vote by mail (VBM) totals released at 8 pm on November 3, 2020, There are approximately 35,000 fraud votes added to each Democrat candidates’ vote totals. Candidates impacted include County, State, and Federal Election candidates. Through the utilization of the automated ballot count machines in Pima County Elections, My understanding is that 35,000 was embedded into each Democrat candidates’ total votes. Below are the meeting notes.
In a meeting I was invited to by the Democrat party in Pima County, Arizona on September 10, 2020, no phones or recording devices were allowed. A presentation was given including detailed plans to embed 35,000 votes in a spread configured distribution to each Democrat candidate’s vote totals.
When I asked, “How in the world would 35,000 votes be kept hidden, or from being discovered?” It was stated that spread distribution will be embedded across the total registered vote range and will not exceed the registered voter count. And the 35,000 was determined allowable for Pima County based on our county registered voter count.
It was also stated total voter turnout versus total registered voters determined how many votes we can embed. The embedding will also adjust based on voter turnout. Because the embedded votes are distributed sporadically, all embedded votes will not be found if audited because embeds are in groups of approximately 1,000. This is so the County Recorder can declare an oversight issue or error, as a group of 1,000 is a normal and acceptable error.
Maricopa County’s embed totals will be substantially larger than Pima, due to embeds being calculated based on the total number of registered voters. When I asked, “Has this ever been tested, and how do we know it works?” the response was, yes, this has been tested and has shown significant success in Arizona judicial retention elections, since 2014. Even undetectable in post audits because no candidate will spend the kind of funds needed to audit and contact voters to verify votes and the full potential of the total registered voters, which is more than 500,000 registered voters. This year our Secretary of State has removed precinct level detail from election night releases, so candidates can’t see precinct over-votes.
This is what I have from this meeting. Just thought I’d report this. Not sure if you can do anything since I was unable to have a recording device at this meeting. Thank You.
Dr Walter C. Daugherity did an online video with Lindell TV, that I didn’t know was even a thing. His video is extremely convincing.
The line in the graph below shows vote return ratio’s over time. This line should not have a continuous slope moving to a target number but if the whistleblower above were correct, it absolutely could. Again, the line from the left, up until election day should start and end at a similar ratio. That it has a continuous slope is evidence of ballot injection based on a controlled process. e.g. We know what is needed at the end, let’s make it look right.
The whistleblower above is obviously correct.
After the first 10 percent of votes come in (where the black error bars start at the first gray line on the left) we know how the early vote returns WILL come in. They cheaters cannot dump ballots all at once or they would get caught. To create a downslope, you need an insanely favorable start, followed by a continual ballot dumping to maintain the ratio on the correct slope for to meet the correct endpoint.
As I have repeatedly explained based on other statistical analysis, the Democrats have access to the vote counts as they are coming in and they are determining the correct amount of fake ballots to insert into the system to make it look close.
Now I think the control system is quite a bit simpler than the doc does but it result is the same. We don’t have to be as smart as he thinks. The first 10 percent of all votes went 3:1 for Biden, this is not representative whatsoever of the 1.7:1 ratio the early vote ended at. This is a very big problem statistically as it is completely unreasonable. Again, there should be no slope at all as we are simply sampling voters so the ratio should be a relatively fixed number.
This same graph was seen in multiple counties, but it means that the Democrats started out with a ridiculously high injection of Brandon ballots.
At about the 3.5th gray line from the right, the slope is too downward but they had a 30% sampling of the total vote. At this point, you can predict the outcome of the election for Trump. See graph below. Something needed to change but with this data, we would have an excellent projection of the election result at this point.
The cure was to inject more ballots over time at an easily calculated rate. No big sophisticated thing required.
Here is the link to the video from June of 22. Lots of great information.
Truly though, the slope should not happen naturally. It is a record of a significant over-representation right at the beginning of an election.
Edit: The method used to stuff ballots is by entering physical ballots. Note the quote from the original letter.
Even undetectable in post audits because no candidate will spend the kind of funds needed to audit and contact voters to verify votes and the full potential of the total registered voters, which is more than 500,000 registered voters.
If the ballots did not exist, they would be detectable and we know they do exist from count audits. You also need the voter name with the fake signature to contact the voter. Something very much impossible when you are not given access but canvassing efforts did reveal the problem.
Ballot stuffing looks like this:
the Air Vent 
It’s very real
it’s very obvious
Some people will never see it
https://giphy.com/gifs/movie-horror-creepy-10flS7xiiR3W0w
Prioritize one hypothesis at a time, please.
If machine counts are being inflated electronically, then there should be an auditable discrepancy between votes and paper ballots.
If additional paper ballots are physically added at central count locations in lots of hundreds up to 1000, then there should be an auditable discrepancy between total “check in” at polling site versus ballots returned to central. (uncounted drop box processes contaminating but not obliterating this discrepancy.)
If actual voters are being denied ballots due to long lines after 7 pm, there is no auditable way to count heads or discern intend or favored candidate. Estimates (computer models?) can only indicate a general trend.
If 19 inch ballots are routed thru “box 3” and going preferentially uncounted (perhaps no re-copied to 20 inch paper?) The total vote counts are suspect but un auditable. On the other hand. Unless the 19. Inch ballots were destroyed then an audit on voter preference of just those tainted sites is possible.
I’ve shown how the ballot stuffing process works. I think other peoples ideas of how the process works are completely wrong. The ballots exist and are being manufactured. This doesn’t mean I’m 100 percent right and it cannot be some combination but the count audits prove that the ballots seem to exist.
By fraudsters having access to the count, they know how many to make. This is my main problem with computer counts.
“Ballot stuffing” … this is different from mules with mailed ballots?
When we were speaking of mules, drop boxes, all that, we were — well, *I* was — speaking of the agents who request vote-by-mail ballots for registered voters, intercept those ballots, mark those ballots, and return them (often, in uncontrolled drop boxes). The registered voters may actually exist. Or they may have once lived at the address of registration and moved on. Or they may be more or less fictitious records — names associated with non-residential addresses or excessively many names at one residence — 20 people at one apartment, say. In any case the ballots in question and the evidence of abuse relate to the signatures involved in the process. The agents/mules often forge signatures on the request for ballot, the return envelopes, or both.
As I understand ballot stuffing, a person authorized to hang around inside a polling place holds a concealed stash of pre-marked ballots of the style used for in-person voting. (“Manufactured” ?) Periodically that insider approaches the ballot box (scanner/counting machine) and, under pretext of examining the count, slips in one or more of the pre-marked ballots. If I understand today’s claim correctly, the pre-marked ballots are fed in according to rules about how many are needed to offset and overwhelm the legitimate voter’s ballots. If this is happening, then the electronic count of scanned ballots and the later hand count of paper ballots would reconcile. But the count of in-person voters who “checked in” and signed for ballots would not match and reconcile. In AZ, the counts at each station of voters checked in, ballots issued, votes processed in the scanners, and ballots returned was not accomplished. AZ also complicated matters by locating “drop boxes” for vote-by-mail ballots within the voting stations. The insider might, optionally, hold a stash of pre-marked ballots (and return envelopes with forged signatures?) and “stuff” the drop box a little at a time throughout the day. Election Day ballots were merged mixed stirred-in with previously requested mailed ballots, contaminating efforts to reconcile even if that reconciliation had been attempted.
Without either agreeing or arguing at this point, are those the two major scenarios?
I think those are possibilities of how it is done but definitely doubt there is anyone inside a polling place with ballots. They may slip a pile in before the count throwing off the ins and outs.
I have a problem when Atlanta Georgia can produce 400,000 new voters that vote only one way. The fraud is very very large. When you see people dropping stacks of them, tracked to 20 or more polling stations, the numbers begin to add up. It is more of a production operation than our less nefarious imaginations could create. The second example is the 250,000 ballots driven from New York to Philadelphia. I believe the same is true in Detroit Michigan where the white van delivers ballots late at night and now Oakland county Michigan. These things can’t really happen in distributed pick up and deliver style harvest operation.
At the same time, both of your scenario’s are reasonable as we’ve got solid evidence of widely distributed vote fraud in Michigan, Georgia, Pennsylvania and Arizona.
There is a reason that the ballot envelopes in Maricopa were illegally delivered and scanned by Runbeck. That data is now on file with one political party – completely outside of anyone’s observance.
I’m still trying and failing to envision what you think you’re describing as the number one priority problem. I’m stupid, I guess.
SO, not a deep fat pocket of pre-marked “Election Day” ballots under the control of a polling site observer, to nefariously slip in with legitimate ballots during the day.
ALSO, not hundreds of mules per city each dropping off five or dozen “mail” or “absentee” ballots (in the names of and with illegible signatures of ghostly invalid voters) in scores of scattered drop boxes.
AND not hackers occultly accessing the counting machines and creating votes out of bits in the cloud or server’s database without either corresponding numbers of paper ballots in the ballot boxes, or the total of counts of signatures on the poll book on Election Day PLUS the number of signatures on applications for absentee/mail ballots. (Which counts of paper ballots and signatures would match each other, but not matching, being much less than, the count of “vote bits” in the data bucket.)
These stacks and crates of unauthorized ballots… in NYC and Detroit and Philadelphia… please paint me your picture of the problems for the less populated venue of Maricopa County in AZ. Aside from the statistics, which I don’t dispute.
For the record, I tend to believe every sort of process abuse I’ve detailed happened in 2022. Somewhere. And in 2020. Somewhere. And in 2018 and 2016 and…. back as far as you like, in as many jurisdictions as we can audit. But I also believe that ending the abuse begins with correctly portraying the mechanisms of malevolent machinations… Help?
“Prioritize one hypothesis at a time, please.”
Remember Jeff’s post on Nevada (?) where multiple people were registered to empty lots?
Isn’t the x-axis in that plot time? Why would you expect zero slope? That would only occur if both parties had the exact same early voting patterns, which isn’t the case.
Also, the “slope readjustment” you note looks like the natural consequence of an early democratic surge, followed by relative even democrat-repub voting throughout the early voting. In such a situation the ratio starts high and saturates over a long time to the mean value. In the middle, it will look like a steep drop which gradually levels out. Mathematically, the ratio would be (D0 + t D)/ (D0 + t D + tR), where D0 is the initial surge, D is the steady rate of democrat votes, R is the steady rate of republican votes.
The initial surge is probably that mail ballots are shown at time 0. Remember these will favor Democrat because the Republican party’s main message to voters was not to vote by mail.