All Episodes
Previous Next
April 24, 2024 - The Lindell Report - Mike Lindell
59:06
The Fingerprints Of Fraud
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
You ever see this guy with the pillows on Fox?
My pillow guy, Mike Lindau.
He is the greatest.
My pillow guy, Mike Lindau.
And he's been with us right from the beginning.
He's been with us since the beginning.
This is CNN's special live coverage, 10.31 a.m.
on the East Coast.
Why am I giving you the time?
Well, if you managed to sleep last night, things changed.
You may have gone to bed thinking this election was headed one way, and then you woke up and you saw things were different and maybe trending, trending increasingly in another direction.
Phil Mattingly at the Magic Wall, you've got a neat tool to show this.
Look, so this is the map right now, right?
We've been talking about this for the last several hours.
It's shifted in the last several hours, but what was happening beforehand?
You can talk to a lot of people who, if they were big Trump fans, big Trump supporters, went to bed probably pretty happy.
Big Biden supporters?
Not super happy.
So let's kind of track through this.
I want to walk through how things have changed.
This is at 1 a.m.
in the morning.
Look at Nevada.
Look at Wisconsin.
Look at Michigan.
Look at Pennsylvania.
Well, just keep Pennsylvania where it is.
Flip to two.
All of a sudden, Nevada flips.
All of a sudden, Wisconsin starts to flip.
Sorry, this is 5am.
This is 5am.
One more.
Michigan as well.
So I'll take all these off and I want to watch it again because just the progression throughout the night, as we were live on television talking about this as it happened, as things looked very, very good for the Trump campaign, particularly in the Midwest, Pennsylvania and in the Midwest, Nevada as well.
So we're waiting for a vote to come in.
1 a.m.
1 AM, 2 AM, 9.05 AM.
And you just watched it.
about the progression over the last several hours. The progression in Wisconsin, the progression
in Michigan, the progression that may be happening in Pennsylvania.
There's a reason for it. There's a reason for it. There's a reason for it. There's a
reason for it.
The 2020 election was perhaps the most contentious election in American history. Those who went
to bed on election night with President Donald Trump seemingly headed to a sure electoral
college victory awoke to a nightmare.
you During the night, counties in numerous battleground states had stopped counting, and when they resumed, Democrat Joe Biden's numbers kept going up in all of them.
Over the next several days, states kept counting absentee votes until finally, Joe Biden was declared the winner by the news media.
Despite the best efforts of Donald Trump supporters to delay certification until the growing amount of evidence could be fully investigated, Congress made the election official on January 6, 2021.
After over three years of research, this is the story of the major ways the election was stolen, and how we can prevent this from ever happening again.
These are the fingerprints of fraud.
Jeff O'Donnell is a computer software and systems expert with over 40 years of experience.
experience.
Since mid-2021, he has been one of the lead researchers into the election of 2020 and subsequent elections as well.
Jeff began researching the 2020 election in earnest in August 2021, after watching Mike Lindell's Cyber Symposium.
So like a lot of you watching this, I woke up on the 4th of November Knowing something had gone hideously wrong.
Didn't know how wrong yet, but it certainly was a disappointment, to say the least.
And then, over the next few days, weeks, news started to get out about strange stopping and counting that happened, unexplained rise in votes for one candidate over the other.
Well, all I could do at the time was kind of keep track of what data was coming out, which was just a little bit back then, and try to follow what was going on, hoping that things could be fixed before the inauguration.
Of course, that didn't happen.
And so if you fast forward to August, I had just started a company.
I'd left my job as CTO for a company I'd been with for quite some years.
And there was Mike Lindell's Cyber Symposium on my computer screens and I watched almost all of it.
And saw that Tina Peters was talking about this server image that she had saved from Mesa County, Colorado.
And I remember hearing about that and thinking, wow, that's going to be a really big deal.
That's really going to help us.
Well, a day or two after the symposium was over, I got a call from a friend who was working on election integrity in Pennsylvania.
And he said, did you look at it yet?
I said, uh, look at what?
And he said, the Mesa image.
And then he explained to me that the Mesa image had actually been made public, which I had not known at that point.
Initially, I pushed back.
I said, I'm trying to get a company off the ground.
I don't have time to work on this.
And anyway, it'll take me forever to get it set up.
And anyway, by the time I get around looking at anything, and if I do find anything, there's going to be a hundred other people like me who've already done it.
So what's the point?
Well, he'd worked with me for a long time, and he thought my skill set was perfect for looking into it, so he kept pranging me, and then the next thing you know, my wife, Nancy, is also trying to compel me to go ahead and look at this image.
And I remember saying to her, I do this and find something.
You know, we're in this for the long run.
And she said, yep, do it.
And that's how I got where I am today.
I'll tell you, I didn't really expect to find anything.
I recall saying at the time, Dominion is not dumb enough to leave evidence in a server in Mesa County, Colorado, that could be found.
I was wrong.
What Jeff found while examining the election databases would not only show proof of manipulation in Mesa County, it would provide a blueprint for discovering a national pattern of fraud.
Before we get into that, we need to start at the beginning of what makes election fraud possible.
In order for fraudulent votes to survive even minimal observation,
their ballots must be tied to a person in the voter rolls.
When there is panic, this might not always happen, but it's the goal.
That means that either falsified entries need to be inserted into the rolls, or existing voter roll records need to be used.
I think at this point I've had the chance to examine more than half of the voter rolls in the country.
And I have yet to find one that I can look at and say, good job!
They are all uniformly bad and insecure, and many appear to use old database technology still.
And the danger of using these voter rolls is pretty apparent to somebody who's worked with big data sets their whole life, like I have.
It really starts with the voter rolls.
And if those are not clean, then it bubbles through the whole system, as you will see in other parts of this movie.
One issue I have with voter rolls in many, many states is that they handle their purging of records by setting them to inactive, keeping them in the database, and just creating a new record.
This is how in Wisconsin you end up with more than 7 million people in the voter rolls and slightly less than half of them not actually being an active record.
This allows for the surreptitious reactivation of voter roll records.
And it should not be acceptable.
One problem with that is there's no transparency.
If there was, we would be able to see when these records are inactivated or reactivated and we can't.
So that is definitely problem number one.
Problem number two comes in with how the voter IDs are assigned.
This was something that became apparent as I was able to see more and more states and also had the privilege of being able to review Dr. Andrew Paquette's data from New York.
Dr. Paquette did an extremely, extremely thorough deep dive into the New York state voter rolls.
And what he found was that the voter IDs have been assigned using a algorithm, meaning instead of just adding one to the last person, oftentimes there is a mathematical equation, actually several mathematical equations used to create the voter IDs in the counties in New York.
The problem with that is that it is impossible in a lot of cases to look at two records and see that this person's voter registration was placed into the voter rolls before this person's.
Which means that if you're obfuscating, that is the technical term for it, if you're obfuscating the voter IDs, Then that opens up the possibility of backdating people into the roles, and it would never be obvious.
And indeed, I've seen evidence that has done.
Other people have seen evidence that has done.
Our voter roles are the fuel source for the other types of fraud.
And as I will get into later in this movie, there has to be a change here if we are going to really have any sort of integrity in our elections moving forward.
Where all this leads, of course, is getting falsified ballots, falsified votes into the count.
And I personally found a very scary number of instances where people are recorded as having voted twice in the same election.
Do I think these people actually voted twice?
No, probably not.
I believe that at least one of those votes was done through the machines.
And through falsified mail-in ballots.
But it's a huge problem in the states I've looked at.
And it ranges from dozens to hundreds to over 6,000 in Wisconsin.
If that doesn't concern somebody, then I don't know what would.
And I have to say, I have some methods for finding these duplicate voters.
And I will be the first to admit that it's very conservative.
It's not going to find all of them.
And there could be many more, because it simply can't check for all of the possibilities.
They do things like change names slightly, flip the first and last name, flip the first and middle name, make small changes to the spelling of the person's name.
It is a definite problem, and it's one that needs to be solved.
As an example of what Jeff is talking about, let's consider the case of Mary Johnson, a woman who has registered to vote and it in the active list.
Mary gets married to a gentleman named Evans and must let the election board know.
The election board inactivates her Mary Johnson voter record and creates a new one under the name Mary Evans.
At election time, her old Mary Johnson record can be silently reactivated and used to vote however the perpetrator wants.
After the election, the Mary Johnson record can be returned to inactive status.
There is no existing safeguards against this type of election fraud, nor are there any processes for the elections office to detect it after it happens.
Voters who move within their county are also handled the same way.
If you're going to have a fake ballot, you're going to need a person in the voter rolls to assign that ballot to.
It goes a little something like this.
From what I have seen in my observations.
First thing they go for is any voter that was created completely fictitiously.
They have been entered into the role.
So we have third party companies like Eric who have access or at least influence into who gets added to our voter rolls.
I think that is a stone cold fact.
So the ability is there to get people who aren't real people or people who are real, but are very unlikely to register.
In Arkansas, for instance, before the last election, they had a tremendous number of people, over 90, suddenly decide to register to vote.
That is not normal.
That doesn't usually happen.
And that could very well be an example of what I'm talking about.
So you use that pool of people who are either fake or aren't really registered, they don't know they're registered, because those are the safest ones to use to assign fake votes to.
When they run out of those, the next thing to go to are the inactive voters, the records of those.
Switch them to active and then they can vote and be switched back to inactive.
So that's your second pool.
Then if they run out of those, Then they have to start using low probability voters.
These are people that are calculated to be very unlikely to vote in the election if somebody hasn't voted in an election in a long time, which is another problem with the voter rules, by the way, in that we're not enforcing the age out.
In other words, if you haven't voted in so many elections, you get purged.
That, in a lot of cases, isn't happening, and even if it is happening, as I said before, they're keeping the inactive records in there, so they're still useful.
But nevertheless, they can figure out, based on age, demographics, a lot of things, who is unlikely to vote, or likely to vote, in any given election.
So they will use that pool.
Then they run into a danger area, though, because if they guess wrong and they use an existing person to cast a early or absentee vote, if that person then wanders into the election office on election day and tries to vote, they're going to hear, well, I'm sorry, sir, you've already voted.
That sounds familiar.
It's because it happens all the time.
You hear the stories, they never go anywhere, but people show up and they're told they already voted.
I believe that most of those are voters who the algorithm, the people who decide,
they did not expect them to vote and they did.
They did not expect them to vote and they did.
If they run out of voters from the voter rolls that they can use for fake votes, a lot of us refer to that as running out of runway.
That's where they have a problem, and that's where they have to panic.
And incidentally, that's what happened in places like Florida in the 2020 election, according to the data that I have seen.
Examination of our voter rolls led Jeff down an unexpected path, as he discovered a system known as the Help America Vote Verification System, or HAVV.
The Help America Vote Act created a system whereby citizens wishing to register to vote without state-issued identification could have their identity verified by the Social Security Administration.
Election officials can send the person's name, birthdate, and the last four digits of their social security number to the online HAVV system and quickly be informed if that information matched an American citizen.
Looking at the purpose of the system as defined on the social security HAVV website confirms that the system is designed for use in the rare case where a citizen does not have state-issued identification.
However, when Jeff downloaded the lookup statistics from the HAVV site, he noted that there were many more lookups than he expected, and that on average one-fourth of them are rejected as not matching a citizen.
I don't think you can escape the conclusion here that the HAVV lookup system is being used to game our voter rolls, to game our registration systems.
If they're not being used to gain our registration systems, they're certainly being used for another improper purpose.
And there needs to be investigation by those who can compel answers from the Social Security Administration and from the states and counties that are using the HAVV system.
What you are seeing here is the calendar year 2020 HAVV lookups from the top 10 states.
You'll see as the numbers pile up through the year and they accelerate as we get closer to the November election.
Yes, you are seeing millions and hundreds of thousands in all of these states.
And remember, on average, a quarter of them do not return a match.
Now, I just told a little white lie.
These are not the top 10 states.
Watch what happens when we add Texas to the mix.
That's right, over 6 million HAVV lookups in 2020.
Are we really supposed to believe that so many people across this country show up to register to vote without a valid ID?
And are we also supposed to believe that a quarter of them across the country do not know their name, their birth date, and the last four, their social security number?
If you believe that, I don't know what to tell you.
Attempts to find information about the use and policies of the HAVV system by election
officials through public records requests have been non-responsive or unhelpful.
The number of ballots referenced in the adjudication database is not the same
as the number that was in the main database.
At this point, Mr. Strui got very upset with me and threatened legal action, including an FBI raid.
How did we get here?
The End.
Those who went to bed on election night with President Donald Trump seemingly headed to a sure electoral college victory awoke to a nightmare.
During the night, counties in numerous battleground states had stopped counting, and when they resumed, Democrat Joe Biden's numbers kept going up in all of them.
Over the next several days, states kept counting absentee votes until finally, Joe Biden was declared the winner by the news media.
Despite the best efforts of Donald Trump supporters to delay certification until the growing amount of evidence could be fully investigated, Congress made the election official on January 6, 2021.
After over three years of research, this is the story of the major ways the election was stolen and how we can prevent this from ever happening again.
These are the fingerprints of fraud.
Now we can get back to Jeff's forensic examination of the Mesa County, Colorado election server.
Because of his decades of experience with Microsoft SQL Server databases, he began his
analysis there.
Bye.
So when I had opened up the server image and saw it was there, it was immediately apparent that we weren't going to get any good information from the typical Windows log files as they had all been configured so that they overwrote every Every few days, maybe a week.
The point is, by the time this image was made in 2021, there was nothing left to tell what had happened in 2020.
So, I decided to dig into the database.
Actually, databases.
This was a newer version of Dominion, 5.13 as I recall.
That they had actually gone to using three databases to run the election rather than just one, which had been done previously.
For instance, Antrim in 2020, Antrim, Michigan, was still using the older version that only had one database.
So there's a main database that has the election definitions, the candidates, the contests, all of that.
It's also where the final vote counts are stored that get reported.
Then there's an adjudication database that all of the ballots and batches, a record of every single one, gets placed into there and it manages the adjudication process.
Adjudication is the process of determining what choices were made by the voter on a paper ballot.
If the ballot has been filled out at a polling location, the ballot is normally scanned into a tabulator there.
In the case of absentee ballots, they are normally scanned into high-speed scanning devices at the county central counting location.
Either way, the result is the same, a digital image of the ballot, which is a fancy way of saying a picture, is stored.
Later, the ballot image is read by the election vendor software, which uses the programmed ballot definitions to determine what votes are marked.
If all votes can be determined to the software's satisfaction, they are added to the election database.
If not, a team of adjudication judges are shown the ballot image, and they decide what the voter's intent was.
After that, the votes again are stored in the election database.
It took me almost no time at all to realize that the number of ballots
referenced in the adjudication database was not the same as the number that was in the main database.
This was the first and frankly most critical find that I made because then I had to pursue and see what happened.
This is the relationship of the databases in the Dominion system used in the 2020 Mesa County election.
After the record of a batch of ballots and their digital images is stored in the master database, they are copied to the adjudication database, which handles the adjudication process we just described.
After all ballots in that batch have gone through the process and all the votes determined, those vote counts are stored to the master database.
What Jeff found was that the master database had record of 971 batches and 90,622 votes for president, which is only one vote off from the official totals reported by the state of Colorado.
The adjudication database, however, contained record of only 915 batches and 86,033 total ballots.
He soon discovered that the adjudication database in use at the end of the counting was not the same database which was used at the beginning.
This original adjudication database contained record of 267 batches and 25,913 total ballots.
and 67 batches, and 25,913 total ballots.
It was very apparent that something in Mesa County had gone horribly wrong.
Looking at these two different sets of databases, particularly the adjudication databases,
it became clear that at one point, the system had stopped using one of them
and it switched over to using the other.
If that were done, you might expect that all of the batches before that time would be in the one and all the batches after that time would be in the other.
Instead, What I found was that there was a mixture.
When the new database had been created, some of the records of the batches had been transferred to it, and some hadn't.
So Mesa County started counting the absentee and some early ballots on the 19th of October, a couple weeks before the actual election.
And on the third day of the counting, in the afternoon, is when this event happened.
Now, I mentioned earlier that the log files that are provided by Windows were useless in figuring out what's going on, but I did find that there was a log file in the database, in the main database, that did record pretty much every transaction, every action that was done in the system, particularly with the adjudication.
This enabled me to see what actually happened.
According to the records and log file from the Dominion database in Mesa County, here is what did happen.
From October 19th through a little after 2 PM local time on October 21st, almost 26,000 ballots had been scanned and counted.
This represents more than a quarter of what would be the final count.
At 2 18 PM, a new adjudication database was created.
It was initially empty, The records for batch 1 and batches 59 through 267 were then copied to the new database, and at that time the new adjudication database became the one used by the Dominion software, effectively orphaning the source records of over 5,500 ballots left only in the old database.
The transferred ballots were then reprocessed, which included sending them through adjudication again.
This is when the adjudication judges in Mesa County began reporting problems, such as seeing the same ballots again and overall adjudication counts not increasing when they completed work on a ballot.
The records show that of the approximately 20,000 ballots processed twice, 1,608 of them had to go through human adjudication the first time.
However, the second time though, to find the evidence that I was hiding from him.
What was really clear after this call was that Mr. Strui wanted to find more charges that he could throw at the clerks in Mesa County.
And he was demanding to know who Jeff had spoken with, who was cooperating with us, so that he could go after them
and make more of a case against Tina Peters and the clerks in Mesa County.
This wasn't the first time, and certainly wasn't the last, that I asked myself a question that I'm sure many of you
have asked yourself over the last couple of years.
How did we get here?
So, we now have MESA Report 3, which gives a timeline, in some cases a second-by-second description of what happened.
And my contention is that the only thing that could have caused this was some software process inside the machine that had decided to do a reprocess of a whole lot of ballots.
About 25% of what would end up being the whole count of Mesa County was reprocessed.
My goal in the report was to not bring the whole Trump Biden thing into it.
Although that's obviously hangs heavy in the air.
It, I don't believe mentions either of those candidates.
And I did not get into the individual votes that were in the batches and ballots that were manipulated, but I did calculate them and the results were shocking.
Jeff was able to calculate the votes for President Trump and Joe Biden, which are contained in the ballots that were reprocessed as well as the ones which came after.
In order to compare them fairly, the small number of Election Day votes were omitted.
By doing this we eliminate the absentee versus Election Day vote bias which exists between Republican and Democrat voters, and we can expect the mail-in votes to be received in a mostly random pattern.
The first column here are the percentages of the votes between the two candidates using the ballots which went through the reprocessing.
President Trump received only 51.1% of those votes, or just a little over half.
The second column shows the percentages for the ballots which came after the reprocessing event.
In these, President Trump received 69.5%, which is more in line with what is expected in this very red county.
Now, we would expect the mail-in vote percentage to be roughly the same throughout.
We can show that by looking at the precinct distribution, which in the case of Mesa is randomized very, very nicely throughout.
And when you think about it, this will be more important in the next chapter of our story.
But for now, people receive the mail-in ballots somewhat randomly or they request them randomly.
They fill them out when they think about it.
They mail them in when they think about it.
They go into drop boxes or they go into the mail, the U.S.
mail, where they are mixed in and finally delivered to the county.
This means you have a fairly random assortment.
So we're dealing with these facts.
The first fact is that These ballots at the beginning, the first quarter or so of them, were manipulated and treated in ways that they should not have been treated.
Secondly, the votes on those ballots are markedly lower for the President Trump than the rest of the ballots afterwards.
Now, I'm not saying that there weren't other Ways of fraud that occurred.
This is one, though, that thanks to math, we can test for.
And the fact that you only have 51 or so percent in those processed, reprocessed ballots, and you've got 69 and a half in all the rest, strongly indicates to me that the vote for President Trump was suppressed In that first set, and if you assume for the moment that 69.5% was the actual will of the mail-in voters in Mesa County.
We're talking about a 3,400 vote difference, meaning President Trump would have had 3,400 or so more votes and Joe Biden would have had 3,400 or so less votes, which is very significant.
We're talking 6, 7% of the total.
Since analyzing Mesa County, Jeff has found similar issues with batches and ballots being improperly processed in
other counties.
These findings will be public when the legal cases in the states they affect are resolved.
And in the next part of this movie, you will see how the analysis of Mesa led to Jeff's discovery of a nationwide
pattern which exists in counties using all five major election software vendors.
The big takeaway from all this.
The machines have the ability to change our votes.
And as such, they can't be trusted.
ever again.
Thank you for joining us.
Welcome to the newscast.
This is a production of the New York Times.
This is a production of The 2020 election was perhaps the most contentious election in American history.
Those who went to bed on election night with President Donald Trump seemingly headed to a sure electoral college victory awoke to a nightmare.
During the night, counties in numerous battleground states had stopped counting, and when they resumed, Democrat Joe Biden's numbers kept going up in all of them.
Over the next several days, states kept counting absentee votes until finally, Joe Biden was declared the winner by the news media.
Despite the best efforts of Donald Trump supporters to delay certification until the growing amount of evidence could be fully investigated, Congress made the election official on January 6, 2021.
After over three years of research, this is the story of the major ways the election was stolen, and how we can prevent this from ever happening again.
These are the fingerprints of fraud.
In early 2020, the world was struck by the COVID-19 pandemic and everything changed.
Businesses were shut down and personal freedoms were curtailed.
As the November 3 election approached, activists used the court systems to change the definition of absentee voting.
Prior to 2020, absentee or mail-in voting in most states was rare and required proof that the voter was incapacitated, traveling, or deployed by the military.
Receipt of an absentee ballot required proof of one of these conditions.
In 2020, using the pandemic fear as the rationale, absentee voting was made unrestricted and largely unregulated in many states.
In addition, courts ruled that, in states like Pennsylvania, absentee votes arriving by mail could be counted long after election day.
The concept of anonymous drop boxes for absentee voting came into being.
In many of these states, the legislative bodies were bypassed by the courts to enact these new policies.
Predictably, the number of voters voting via absentee ballot skyrocketed in 2020, and with it came a myriad of problems.
I'd like you all, if you can, to forget the 2020 nonsense and go back to how voting used to be.
Now, I know that there's a few of you states out there that drank the mail-in Kool-Aid a long time ago, and that's frankly why you can't have nice things out there anymore.
But hopefully we'll be able to get around to showing you some sense eventually.
But prior to 2020, somebody who wanted to vote would take their voter registration and their ID in places that require it, which should be everywhere, but they would go down to their local precinct and they would show their ID.
They would sign the poll pad.
The official there would check the signature with what was in the voter rolls for when the person registered.
They would look at it.
Heck, in a lot of cases, they'd know you.
And after they had verified your signature and knew it was you, they ushered you into the little polling booth and you voted.
Absentee voting changes all of that.
So all we have that proves that the person whose name is on that mail-in ballot was the person who filled it out is the signature, which was signed, of course, without any witness.
This is where everything falls apart.
As we talked about registration fraud in the voter rolls, you know, there is some question as to whether all of those people who registered are really the people.
But nevertheless, they have sometimes people that, more often than not, computers that do the signature verification.
It was recently revealed in Georgia, in some counties, that there was no Signature verification on most, if not all, of the absentee ballots that came in.
We have other places that was able to adjust the sensitivity, how close the signature has to be, to something like 10%, which means that a squiggle and a slightly different squiggle are still going to be matched as the same one.
It opened the floodgates for election fraud.
We are left with a situation where many of our election systems, from the voter rolls to the signature verification to the counting of the votes themselves, are left to third-party black box systems that have no transparency in how they work.
And as much as the voter rolls provide the fuel for election fraud, the new absentee ballot policies provide the transport mechanism.
In the old days, before the rise of the election computers and unrestricted absentee balloting, It was very difficult.
It was very hands-on to do election fraud.
You had to inject a number of ballots on election day into the counties or into the polling places.
If you've lived in some of the states that I've lived in, everyone knows of one or two big counties that traditionally wait and try to be the last to report their votes.
And in a lot of cases, it's because of this sort of mischief that is going on.
But now, now that we have the unrestricted absentee voting, They can take a pretty good guess, a very educated guess of what the actual vote count is going to be in a county, and inject fake mail-in votes at the beginning, where we don't traditionally look for that sort of thing.
Look, putting a whole bunch of ballots in at the end creates things like the F-curves and huge spikes, and we know how to look for those.
But we don't look at the beginning, or at least we didn't back then.
Now in 2020, there were a couple of states, Wisconsin and Michigan being two of them, that did show a very strange F-curve.
It happened early morning the day after the election.
And I believe I know why that happened, and I will be sharing that with you in just a little bit.
Jeff's mistrust of absentee ballots isn't just an opinion.
His research into the Mesa County server led him to a very important discovery, and that discovery was done through what are called cast vote records.
A cast vote record is one or more files produced by a computerized election system that quite simply documents each ballot that is processed by a county and the votes which were marked on that ballot.
While it can contain other useful information like the precinct of the voter and how the vote was cast, a cast vote record never contains information linking that ballot to the voter who cast it, nor does it ever contain information which would compromise the voter or election system security.
Thus, the cast vote record normally provides the best and simplest auditing method of an election.
Dominion, ES&S, HardinterCivic, ClearBallot, and Smartmatic election systems are all capable of producing a cast vote record for every election.
Some systems allow this critical feature to be turned off, and some very old versions of election software may not support it.
Some counties which did have cast vote records available, requested exorbitant prices to provide them to the public, as much as $5,000.
All for pushing a few buttons, Oh, there are actually many types of CastVote records.
While most of them do come in a spreadsheet form, as far as what columns are there differs kind of wildly.
I think I've identified 15 different styles between the different vendors and different versions of the vendors.
Some of them come as XML files.
Jeff found that the cast vote records allowed him to replay an election from start to finish, oftentimes by precinct, tabulator, and voting method.
This allowed him to see not only the final vote counts, but how those vote counts progressed during the counting.
So it goes back to Mesa County, again.
While I was going through all of the data, I noticed a cast vote record.
I have to admit, I did not know much about cast vote records at the time, as a lot of people didn't.
But when I realized what it was, and it let me replay the election, and see what happened for every race over the course, it showed me some really fascinating things, some of which I'll get to in a moment.
And then I received another.
I believe it was Dr. Dougherty who sent me one from Pima County, Arizona.
Now, Pima was an ES&S county, as opposed to Mesa County being a Dominion County.
But I noticed some of the same strange things in their cast vote record.
So I started asking people on my channel, my raccoon army, as it were, to start requesting, using public records requests, the cast vote records from their individual counties and states.
And the result was fantastic.
We got more and more built up over the year 2022.
I had the chance to talk to Mike Lindell about it at one point during that,
and showed him an example of some of the things that I was seeing.
And...
And when he realized what it was, he actually shocked me, because this wasn't planned, at the 2022 symposium in Missouri.
At the end, he put out a call for people to request cast vote records.
This took it to a whole new level and created no small amount of chaos throughout the country.
The joint effort by Jeff and Mike resulted in thousands of public records requests being sent to county election offices.
When election workers started complaining, and even sometimes quitting, the news media took note and attempted to discredit the entire effort as election interference.
Give me a break.
This was their job.
Thousands of people across the country suddenly realized they had a voice and they rose up and they requested the data that should be theirs.
I was so proud of the people from Raccoon Army and Mike's followers who just, you know, rose up.
And anyway, as far as swamping them, think about this.
Okay, you get a request for a cast vote record.
If you don't have it lying around, you gotta generate it.
That takes a couple minutes.
Then you get another request.
Well, here it is.
Another request.
Oh, here it is.
Another request.
Oh, here it is.
It isn't exactly asking them to split the atom.
I actually cut the clerks and election workers in 2020 a lot of slack, because there's really no way they could have known what was coming down the pike at them, at least most of them.
But by the time the 2022 election cycle came around, If they didn't know, then they weren't paying attention.
With all the evidence that was being developed and publicized, it was their job to know.
Yet, they went ahead and put their signature and certified elections that they knew.
They knew there was a problem.
Are they afraid of getting fired?
Fine!
Get fired!
Go find another job that doesn't make you complicit in the destruction of our country.
There's plenty of bad people willing to do that.
Despite the media frenzy, hundreds and hundreds of counties responded.
This is a map showing the states where at least one county responded with a valid 2020 cast vote record, and the number of counties that did.
Note the number of traditionally Republican states which prevented their counties from providing the records.
But it was good chaos, because it ended up getting us a thousand cast vote records, more than that when you take all the different elections since that we've gotten.
And that was plenty of data to do an analysis and a comparison between them.
And that is where the true fingerprints of fraud come from.
Jeff has mentioned that he tests the data in the cast vote record absentee ballots for randomness.
One of the ways he does this is by plotting the precinct scene in each block of ballots.
Only counties which pass the randomness test can be evaluated for the unique pattern he first observed in Mesa County, which he calls the Mesa Pattern.
Here you can see that just viewing the precincts appearing in every 10 ballots provides a random pattern.
It is fairly easy to determine if a county's absentee votes are not random.
This is the same graph but from a county in Wisconsin which obviously processes or sorts their absentee ballots by precinct.
In Mesa County, President Trump ended up credited with a little over 62% of the absentee ballots cast when compared to Joe Biden.
When Jeff viewed the percentage of votes counted for Donald Trump throughout the counting of the absentee ballots, he expected to see something similar to this pattern.
This is a random pattern which would end up at 62%.
Instead, he discovered that the cast vote record told a very different story, with a deep dive in the beginning followed by a general rise towards the eventual 62%.
While this shattered the law of large numbers, it was, after all, just one county.
Perhaps something unusual had occurred during the voting there.
When Jeff did the same analysis of Pima County, Arizona, and then Placer County, California, he noted that both had very similar patterns.
This was the moment Jeff decided to mobilize his followers to get more data.
That's when things took off because what I had seen in Mesa and then Pima and then all these other places was that they were not looking random as far as the mail-in votes go and they were all not looking random in exactly the same way.
Jeff has devised a four-point test to determine how well a county's absentee ballot results fit into the Mesa pattern.
First, the absentee ballots must show randomness.
Secondly, one candidate must reach their lowest ever percentage within 40% of the counting.
In most Mesa pattern counties this is around 25 to 33%.
Thirdly, there must be a gradual increase in that candidate's totals to near the end of the counting.
This cannot be a sudden rise, but must build over time.
Lastly, the candidate's final percentage must be 1.1 to 1.3 times their percentage at the midpoint of the counting.
Most Mesa pattern counties cluster around 1.2 or a 20% rise.
This shows the visible components of the Mesa pattern.
There is a depression of the candidate's percentage, then the gradual rise.
There can be one or more midpoint corrections as seen here.
Then there can be an ending correction which will be seen as either a flattening out of the curve or even a decline.
So I've identified 11 states so far.
that have a significant number of counties within them that show the same pattern, which I've called the Mesa Pattern.
This is not a small number.
Out of 220-some counties that we've received cassowate records for in those states, more than 180 of them match the pattern extremely closely.
The states Jeff has identified as having a high percentage of Mesa pattern counties are Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Idaho, Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, and West Virginia.
Several other states also have one or more counties showing the Mesa pattern, but not the majority.
To demonstrate the commonness of the pattern, this graph shows you President Trump's percentage during the counting of the 2020 election using just 14 counties from 14 different states.
The percentages and vote counts have been normalized so they can all be shown on one chart.
While they all start out chaotically different, they all begin to show the same upward pattern and all fall between the 1.1 to 1.3 rise.
To further show the magnitude of what Jeff has found, each of these red dots is a county that fit the MESA pattern according to 2020 cast vote records.
Let's have a look at this again.
♪♪ There are many levels to this.
Thank you.
Let's say that you don't believe that the mail-in votes are received randomly, even though I believe I've done enough research, and others have as well, to say that, in general, that they are.
Then what would cause a small county in New Jersey to vote its mail-in votes in pretty much the same pattern as Los Angeles County in California?
Another eye-opening fact about the Mesa Pattern counties is that they represent all five of our largest election vendors.
While Dominion is much better represented, there is a substantial number for each of the others.
Smartmatic is used in only one county in America, Los Angeles County in California.
This was not a one-size-fits-all election fraud situation.
There were many, many ways to attack the election, and whichever was easiest and most effective in a particular state or a particular county is the one that they did.
But I think the two common denominators are the machines that can manage the election, manage the votes, do whatever they want.
And the absentee ballots, which can be faked by the thousands.
I'm not saying that there might not be the same sort of manipulation going on in other types of ballots, early ballots, possibly the election day ballots, but because we don't have the assumption of randomness, then we can't make a statistical case for it being manipulated.
Some states do not show any Mesa pattern counties in their cast vote records.
The counties in Wisconsin, for instance, process the mail-in ballots at the precinct level, destroying any randomness.
Counties in Michigan show similar sorting.
In all cases, counties with less than about 5,000 voters usually do not show a Mesa pattern, perhaps because there just aren't enough votes for a pattern to emerge.
The hard intercivic systems used in many Texas counties produce their cast vote records in XML format, and in most cases in a manner which makes it impossible to determine the actual counting order.
However, Jeff does note that when viewing the entire election graph in Dane, Wisconsin, and Wayne, Michigan, they do show the pattern.
Because that pattern is not visible in the absentee votes, Jeff does not include these as Mesa pattern counties.
Cast vote records are a tremendous tool in analyzing our elections, and they should be considered vital public election records, provided at reasonable cost to anyone who wants to see them.
We don't get many counties sending us cast vote records anymore.
I wonder why that is.
It's a record of all of the vote counts going to zero from whatever they were at the time
for every state.
I don't know.
You ever see this guy with the pillows on Fox?
My pillow guy, Mike Lindell.
He is the greatest.
My pillow guy, Mike Lindau.
▲
Export Selection