Surveillance video recorded overnight after the election shows a white van making deliveries to a major Michigan ballot counting center: TCF Center in Detroit.
The video was obtained by The Gateway Pundit.
The deliveries of boxes reportedly occur hours after the deadline for ballots to be collected.
During that same time period, President Trump's large lead in Michigan was overtaken by a surge in ballots counted for Joe Biden.
Also shown on the video is a black car that is greeted twice, near the time of the van deliveries.
Watch the video at the link below:
Read the story in Gateway Pundit by clicking the link below:
It's maddening that reporters, others keep posting this stuff, when what the people really need is the list of NAMES of those who were the decision makers to NOT pursue justice, the paper trail of THAT, and what Constitutional RECOURSE the people have to stop, correct, bring justice.
Thomas Quinn says
Agreed. I contacted the GatewayPundit and asked if he knows of any investigation into the TCF video footage... he responded "We have heard of no investigations."
Its obvious to those that are willing to see that the election was stolen. The fact that no court is willing to look at it leaves me to believe there is a 3rd party behind all this
Seems there are no honest judges in the country and no one willing to correct this.
The military could correct this crap in minutes but refuse, blinded or corrupted.
This leaves us with one option - kinetic action?
It should be a law that it must totally and thoroughly be found out what occured-- which is very obvious and should have been done as soon as this and any irregularities were revealed--then taken as a lot of doubt as to the true count and be redone even Now. It looks very Incompetent but that shows-- To Everybody--thst should have been done at that time--respect for getting this done correctly regardless of what anyone thinks about how this looks. All "irregularities" that we know are cheating should have and can still be handled the same way. Othrteisdy, this will Treason of usurpation of a president by the ballot box will continue. Also, anyone, without exception involved in the election fraud count should be be charged, tried, convicted of treason and give me the penalty due.
Pierre LeMaster says
Thanks for being a responsible journalist.
I am a retired pediatrician and very concerned at the trends found in government education. Since retirement I have been tutoring reading for homeschooled children.
daniel gray says
Sharyl, I have to say this you be careful Sharyal As you know these people are out of their minds and capable of most anything. I have been dealing with them since the 70's...
Can they get the license # off that black car?
Ron Simmons says
Only if it's a legal plate.
I’m sure if there had been Trump ballots inside these vehicles, there would have been arrests and prosecutions within days. However, it is basically illegal to investigate any criminal activity that involves Democrats. Democrat corruption and crime somehow “fortifies” and protects democracy, and is above the law. Laws are now only enforceable if they protect radical leftists. Finally, dictatorial communist countries around the world are able to look up to the USA as a role model for corruption and control.
It probably belongs to one of the Michigan senators. You know, the ones who are insisting the election was fair.
Thomas Quinn says
carolyn olson says
Do you watch NCIS? I think they can!
I hope I'm not joking. It would be interesting to know if that can actually happen.
carolyn olson says
How long will it take to investigate such happenings. Aren't there a huge number of things just like this?
Sabrina Ergert says
I would send the picture to a computer expert who will digitally improve the picture quality so you can see the license plate.
Video text says the black car has a PA plate.
A Michigan Mobile Voting van? Paid for by Zuckerburg?
Hauling ballots in USPS trays?
Wonder if those ballots traveled from Bethpage, NY to Lancaster, PA in the back of Jesse Morgan’s truck....
cj kelley says
I do not see any actual date or time on the security video. That seems very odd to me since you must have it to prove anything or it is just hearsay.
Praying the Truth be Revealed,The FBI cannot be trusted They are part of all this,,God is Geater than Evil!🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🇱🇷🇱🇷
More evidence of anomalies that will be ignored...
Austen Lennon says
It is such a shame that they didn't post the original video. I really don't trust these edited videos... theoretically this could be a video taken anytime...
Should be very easy
Locate red light cameras in the area
Should be many
Do a FOIA request corresponding times and date
R.M. Castillo says
Yes, it's good to see there are those who are still working on this.
I hope some entrepreneur steps up and makes Made In The USA voting machines and software too !!!!
Kathleen Wallace says
Just one example of election fraud. This election was full of irregularities. According to Judicial watch, there were a total of 1.8 million ghost voters in 353 counties in 29 states. In those 353 counties more people were registered to vote than there were people eligible to vote. Then, there is the little matter of the Mike Lindell documentary which showed the election interference by foreign governments. He also interviewed the lawyer that had a forensic analysis done on the voting machines in Antrim County, Michigan. That analysis showed that the machines had a 68% error rate and the logs were missing which is a big problem. No, election fraud? Conspiracy theories? I don't think so. The left is doing all it can to distract us from the truth that Biden did not win this election.
Stephen Triesch says
I wonder how many of the people who categorically say there was no election fraud have even bothered to examine the evidence?
People who say there was no election fraud have a narrative they want to promote. Examining the evidence makes it too hard to promote this story.
Robert Livingston says
With that high an error rejection rate it is obvious that the machines didn't work ... or it was trying to read fake ballots. Counterfeit ballots could have scaling and centering problems or not fully printing all the way to the edges. Machines have no concept of names, only the location of shaded locations. Poorly aligned tracking bars forces an incorrect target for the vote selection shading. Also, if the machine setup is not initialized, then vote assignment to targets cannot be determined. WHO'S on first and WHAT'S on second or is it WHAT'S on first and WHO's on second. Then too if testing of the settings are made prior to the election and not cleared, then the test ballots are included in the actual election before it even starts.
Cynthia o says
Well stated, Kathleen....thanks.
Here is the importance. It's hard to unduy influence an election when there is a deadline, because you need to know the vote tally in order to see many *more* votes are needed if you wished to covertly sway a vote count by exerting your own unfair ifluence. This is why it was important to get special (extra legal) extensions to voting deadlines so ballots could keep coming in as the votes are now concurrently being tallied up. This is key.
It could be, what was seen being "handed off" was, say, a pen drive showing latest tallies -- in other words, showing what was needed. Thus, no phone calls were used, no hand written documents or notes involved or other traceable materials. Computer analysis would show the pen drive event, but who knows which computer, and who will ever go looking for such.
These are just suggestions and questions of possibilities, of course, since no official clarity is given. It is the peoples' election after all -- there is a right to know. No use labeling people as "conspiracy nuts" when questions are reasonble, given suspicions actions.
Stephen Triesch says
One question I have is whether each polling place delivers its own ballots to the central counting facility, or whether the ballots at several (or numerous) polling places are picked up and transported by the same vehicle. I think this is important because if the latter case is true, then I might be able to understand the long delay between the closing of the polls and the delivery of the ballots. Still, six or seven hours after the closing of the polls before delivery to the counting facility seems like a very long time.
Pat Carlisle says
Everyone, including Dems, in their heart of hearts, knows the election was stolen. We just somehow need to prevent it in the future, if we can.
Robert Livingston says
If we know the computer IP addresses and time stamps (Michael Lindall) of hacking and if it was successful, matched with time stamps of uncharacteristic spikes in voting, then we need to identify the specific machines with these IP addresses and investigate logs.
I’m just happy I can see this article. I don’t want to live in a society that I can only see one side of a story (the narrative) whether it be election fraud, vaccine safety etc.. Thank you, Sharyl, for your reporting.
Robert Livingston says
If the truck is a city truck, then find the person it was assigned to, from city works. Then ask that person directly to account for the delivery.
Colin Bastable says
How come we are all still playing Whodunit? We The People solved these crimes in realtime, but we pay the FBI and all those "Blue Lives" that "Matter" to actually do this crime-solving and arrest stuff.
Next time you see an "I Back The Blue" yard-sign, ask yourself - "Who are the first people the "Blue" would arrest? The Criminals? Or the ones who "Back The Blue?"
The FBI has 13,000 sworn agents and yet not one of them has seen fit to see even a smidgin of any electoral crime. Strzok's wife, btw, was just promoted to AD of the SEC's Enforcement Division. Think about that.
Dick Lanier says
When I saw the headline to this article, my first thought was “it just never ends”. My second thought after watching the video and reading the article was that there are likely benign explanations for what happened yet the article only gives a conspiratorial one – election fraud.
In about ten minutes of searching, I found an article that provided such a benign explanation. It included an interview with Chris Thomas, “Michigan’s longtime chief elections administrator, a nonpartisan who spent decades working under secretaries of state from both parties” who was quoted in the article as saying this about the ballots mentioned in this article: “Those were the ballots received on Election Day [from] drop boxes, from the mail and in the clerk’s office, and in the satellite offices. It happens every election.”
The article also includes this: “At one point, around 3:30 in the morning, Thomas supervised the receiving of Detroit’s final large batch of absentee ballots. They arrived in a passenger van. Thomas confirmed the numbers he’d verified over the phone: 45 trays, each tray holding roughly 300 ballots, for a total of between 13,000 and 14,000 ballots.”
Trump lost Michigan by 154,000 votes.
I tried to count the trays that were offloaded. The video was too grainy to tell for sure, but it could have been more than 45 trays. But it was only a few more. To get to 154,000 ballots would require 513 trays, and there weren’t anywhere near that many.
Is Mr. Thomas’s story true? I don’t know, but at least it should be investigated before speculative articles like this are published. What exactly is the nature of this fraud (this article doesn’t say, preferring to leave it to the reader, I suppose, to concoct some wondrous story). Were these “suspicious” ballots supposedly manufactured by some Biden-friendly group? If so, how did they circumvent the normal voting process which seeks to reconcile the number of ballots cast with the final election results? Wouldn’t a large enough number of “suspicious” ballots have triggered something in that reconciliation process? Well, it turns out that the “poll books” were out of balance in Detroit - to the tune of about 450 votes. And they were out of balance in 2016 as well, but no one made a big deal out of it.
And it’s not as if these guys were attempting to hide anything. The video clearly shows the TCF Center worker with a clipboard noting the delivery of the ballots. I can only assume that they knew that their activities were being recorded.
If there was fraud, how to explain that Trump actually did better in Detroit in 2020 than he did in 2016?
And how to explain that no judge saw fit to agree with any of the many election fraud lawsuits brought on Trump’s behalf?
There may be perfectly logical reasons that address these shortcomings in this conspiracy theory, but you certainly won’t find them in this article.
Remember Melissa Carone who claimed that a van ostensibly used to bring food to the election workers was, in her opinion, too small for such a task and was, therefore, being used to bring illegal ballots into the counting center? She later admitted that she hadn’t actually seen any ballots in that van. This article has that same tinge – let’s not investigate too much, let’s just take anything that seems out of the ordinary and immediately jump to voter fraud.
Journalists are supposed to provide context in their articles to those of us who couldn’t possibly, in this case for example, have any insight into Michigan election processes. They should at least make an attempt to separate the wheat from the chaff, to give the reader an idea of what the true story is. Instead of that, this article contains the line “during that same time period, President Trump's large lead in Michigan was overtaken by a surge in ballots counted for Joe Biden” as if it was a surprise that Biden did better with mail-in voters than same-day voters (as he did all across the country, not just in Michigan). But instead of admitting that fact, this article implies that the Biden surge was due to skullduggery. Why? My inescapable conclusion is that this was done to paint a picture, to keep the election fraud story alive somehow. It’s sad, and it’s infuriating.
As I said at the beginning, it just never ends.
Investigative journalism is always based upon questions, and this video certainly contains those, like the mysterious out-of-state automobile and it's apparent connection with those delivery vans, and if not connected, then why did it appear each time inside the facility within quick concurrence of the vans pulling in. And what were the quizzical "handoffs" by the same, unknown young man who came out the facility to rendeavous with the car each time just before the vans pulled in, and where we see the passing of communications between him and the unknown drive and something(s) handed over between them.
Yes, it never ends when mysteries like thes are simply ignored, passed over, by those who don't wish such questions to come to light,
Is it possible that delivery vans can be intercepted en route, and boxes switched? Of course it is. Is it possible that counterfit ballots were manufactured from unknown sources and used for this switch over? Of course, it is. That was why Joven Pulizer's testimony before the Georgia legislative special committee explained how easy it is to answer this question by allowing examination of the ballots for foreign artifacts. Even though that legislative committee ruled to have this done, the administrative arm of that government thwarted their will. Thus, yes, it never ends when questions are thwarted instead of directly addressed.
Dick Lanier says
While it is true that investigative journalism is based on asking questions, it should at least make an attempt to address the questions being raised. At a minimum, it should provide whatever relevant information that exists. This piece doesn’t do any of that. I provided what appears to me to be a more than reasonable explanation for the events seen on the video. That information doesn’t prove anything, of course, but leaving that out of the piece is practically a dereliction of journalistic duty.
You raised the possibility that the votes were switched on the way to the counting center. Is that possible? As I always say, if it doesn’t violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it’s possible. But in this case, it overlooks the fact that the number of ballots being delivered (unless you want to claim that Mr. Thomas was in on the fraud and lied to the public about that number) was far, far insufficient to change the outcome (13,000-odd ballots were in the shipment when Biden won Michigan by 154,000). Or are you claiming that multiple vans of votes were hijacked? And why was the mysterious car needed if the van had already been hijacked? And why would the mysterious car driver make his mysterious exchange in full view of the security camera?
I assume that the person you are referring to is actually J. Hutton Pulitzer. Here is a note that I found about him: Pulitzer later became a treasure hunter, searching unsuccessfully for the Ark of the Covenant and later claiming that a sword, that was likely a fake, not only had “‘magical’ magnetic properties” but was also a sign that ancient Romans had visited North America by 200 A.D.
This doesn’t mean that he doesn’t have the goods on election fraud, but it does make me pretty suspicious of his theory. And my guess is that it didn’t take very much to convince the Georgia legislative committee to go along with Mr. Pulitzer since he was singing the song that they wanted to hear.
And that’s the problem. Republicans are so eager to believe any story of election fraud that they will accept anyone who is willing to make any claim, however outrageous. So you have the Dominion – Hugo Chavez connection and the “Kraken” lawsuit with its ridiculous claim of 1-in-15,000,000,000,000 odds of Biden winning (and if you have read the lawsuit you know how bad the math is) and the claim that more people voted in Detroit than were registered. And they hide behind the seemingly innocuous argument that “just this one more thing” will be enough to settle it. Well, pardon my skepticism on that score. Georgia has conducted three recounts because, well, the first two weren’t good enough. Arizona has conducted multiple audits because the Arizona Republican Party complained that the first ones didn’t include enough ballots. Wisconsin did a recount of its two most populous counties. None of these showed any issues. But it’s never enough.
And all the time those advocating for fraud have never explained how it is that such a massive fraud could be conducted across multiple states involving tens of thousands of ballots and many poll workers and election officials (of both parties, including ardent Trump supporters) without leaving any hard evidence behind. Instead of trying to answer that question, we are directed to focus on mysterious vans doing what Michigan election officials are saying that they should be doing.
If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a thousand times - you can’t prove a negative. So, no, in my opinion the charges of election fraud have not been ignored. They have been investigated to a fare-thee-well. But to those who want to continue to believe in election fraud, there will always be “just one more thing”.
If you recount fraudulent ballots, it doesn't matter how many times you count them. There is now mathematical proof of manipulation of the numbers in at least three states. There are patterns in the time series that shouldn't be there if the numbers were generated naturally. It's like throwing a hundred coins on the floor, and finding them nicely stacked in towers of ten coins in each. Edward Solomon Geometric Proof https://youtu.be/_hVurQ608CU
Dick Lanier says
There seems to be serious issues with consistency here. There are two choices to support how Biden “fraudulently” won. The first is that the vote counting process manipulated the results. That is what this article seems to be claiming with its talk of “phantom precincts” and Euler violations. I think that I will withhold my judgment on these claims until other mathematicians weigh in. Because I seriously doubt that many readers (me, included) are really qualified to judge the accuracy of this work. This reminds me of the argument that the Georgia vote violated Benford’s Law which, of course, was also used to claim voter fraud (and I believe that this theory was also referenced in an article in this newsletter). Then I happened to see a video by a real mathematician who showed that Benford’s Law didn’t apply to the election returns (because for Benford’s Law to apply, the raw data has to encompass many orders of magnitude which election returns do not).
And remember that Georgia did a hand recount by comparing the paper ballot results with the machine results and found no issues. So that would seem to exonerate the machines. And it would also exonerate some mechanism within the overall machine vote counting process. In fact, by hand-counting the votes it would seem that it wasn’t possible for this theory to be true since the hand-counting bypassed all of the machine vote-counting. So creation of “phantom precincts” and manipulated votes wouldn’t have been possible. So this would mean that ballots were somehow fraudulently created and fed into the system. But that is not what this article claims. It seems to claim that the fraudulent ballots were simply electronically created within the vote counting system. Actually what it seems to claim is that no ballots were really created; the vote totals were simply manipulated. But then you run into the problem of the hand recount matching.
And according to the article, the “algorithm” supposedly required actual voting data to know how many votes to swap. So it would have had to dynamically calculate the number of votes needed to switch to Biden as the “real” Trump votes rolled in. That implies that the “algorithm” would have had to be running on whatever computer compiled the votes from several precincts (because the machines at the precinct level wouldn’t have had the necessary overall picture to know how many votes to switch). So where was this “algorithm” run?
Putting aside the fact that the article that claims to “prove” voter fraud is based on manipulating the results electronically, consider that the other possibility is that fraudulent ballots were created and fed into the system (see the comment “if you recount fraudulent ballots, it doesn't matter how many times you count them” above). That would mean that the hand recount would have been satisfied. So where did the fraudulent ballots come from? If they were physical ballots wouldn’t they have caused a mismatch between the number of ballots counted and those actually received? Remember that Georgia did an audit of the mail-in votes in several counties around Atlanta and found no serious issues.
If it wasn’t fraudulent physical ballots, and it wasn’t manipulated vote counting, what was it? I honestly can’t think of another explanation.
Note that the article that has generated these comments was about a mysterious van in Detroit delivering votes at 3:30 a.m. Which, to no one’s surprise, was also taken as proof of voter fraud. So which is it? Did a mysterious van deliver fraudulent ballots in Atlanta as well. Or is this Georgia claim yet a different voter fraud mechanism? It’s just so hard to keep up.