Jessica Denson

We will never give up, we will never concede.

We're going to walk down to the Capitol— But I said, "Something's wrong here, something's really wrong."

The 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution—if you haven't introduced yourself, here's something of an introduction.

Section 3, specifically, is about disqualification from office, from office, and it so reads— "No person shall be a senator or representative in Congress, or elector of president and vice president, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state who, having previously taken an oath as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

Meaning: if someone had sworn an oath to support the Constitution—like serving this perfect statesman—and then took part in rebellion—like Jan 6—or helped the enemy—like giving aid and comfort to J6ers by promising pardon—they—they—as in criminal Trump—or banned from holding positions in the government, though Congress can remove this ban with a two-thirds vote, which in this case should members of Congress— Even think about two—would be a betrayal of their oaths of office.

I believe our job— We just took an oath, I just took an oath, Jake, to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and we have a duty to advise and consent.

A number of our Republican colleagues in the Senate agree.

You know, we're going to stand our ground and hold them accountable for what they said, that they wanted to help average people in our country.

Well, let me ask: do you see prepared for whatever might happen? Yes.

It's etched in our minds forever, with the police officers dying, so many people hurt.

We literally had cops that couldn't get at their riot gear, it was locked on a bus.

A 4-hour delay to call in the National Guard because of some rule that had been in place that created a phone tree.

An architect of the Capitol who's kind of the boss of a bunch of the employees wasn't even there.

When you look at the work of the January 6 Committee—and I support that work, the work that came out of the House of Representatives—they established for the historical record what happened.

Putting aside the fact that a lot of people had reasons that they voted the way they did, people still care about their democracy.

I was just watching one of your panels, you know, 4 out of 5 people in the last election felt that Donald Trump had done something wrong. He did. He did.

He led an insurrection. But the people have now voted, and our job tomorrow, which is also January 6, is to implement the will of the people. It's the peaceful transition of power.

DONALD TRUMP: We don't need votes. I tell my people, I don't need any votes.

We got all the votes we need, I don't need votes.

We don't need votes. We got more votes than anybody's ever had.

You don't have to vote, don't worry about voting.

The voting—we got plenty of voters.

We can take the Senate pretty easily, and I think with our little secret we're going to do really well with the House, right?

Our little secret is having a big impact.

He and I have a secret.

We'll tell you what it is when the race is over.

You know, computers are the greatest.

He looked at some that were just shipped in, some of these vote-counting computers.

He knew it before it even came in the door.

He looked, like, at the back of it, "Oh, I know that one."

I'm a—I'm a technologist. I know a lot about computers.

And I'm like, the last thing I would do is trust a computer program.

Because it's just too easy to hack. It's too easy to add just one line.

Yeah, but— You got the— You got the— You got the— SpaceX, it quietly just do whatever we want.

What's your assessment? Is this—did this work? Is he going to win?

Yeah, yeah, it is. Not for now. But not for now.

Not for— I'm—I'm— You're fucked, dude. You're unfucked.

If he loses, I'm fucked. It does seem that way.

You can't just be like—you can't just be like, "Yo, I—" Yeah, I'm like, "How long do you think my prison sentence is going to be?"

Do you think—well, I see my children, I don't know.

I'm Jessica Densen, and you're watching a very special "Lights On, After Dark."

We are doing this show because we understand that absolutely everything is on the line tomorrow, January 6, 4 years after that deadly insurrection.

If you are a regular of "Lights On," you know I've spent the last 3 days in Washington, D.C., with a historic movement called 14th Now to lobby Congress to uphold their constitutional oath and reject Donald Trump's illegal presidency by objecting tomorrow to his electors as not regularly given.

That is their duty.

Whether or not he was elected, whether or not it is the will of the people, it is their duty to object to his electors under our Constitution.

That said, there is a conversation that so many people in the media, in the Democratic establishment, basically anyone with a platform, is pretty much terrified to have.

And it's the elephant in the room, and that is: did Donald Trump even win this election?

Is it even the will of the people that this man be put back in power?

And believe me, I understand the optics problem.

I understand their fear.

We had a deadly insurrection 4 years ago, where, as was described by Senator Klobuchar, officers' lives were forever changed, they were put in unthinkable combat positions, it was a disgusting, disgraceful betrayal of our nation.

That, however, cannot forever prevent us from having legitimate conversations about election integrity.

Every healthy democracy does election hygiene.

And we have been so gaslit by the criminal actors who tried to keep the will of the people subverted for the powerful, for those who wanted to preserve their own interests, that we can't even talk about this for the—for the good of us all.

And so, in that spirit and understanding that absolutely everything is on the line tomorrow, even knowing that the regular legal pathways for addressing this issue, in many ways, I believe, have passed, I, as you know, stopped covering this issue about a month or so ago when our recount deadlines expired.

And I covered it intensely until that point, because I believed that was the legal recourse we needed to take.

And by the way, let me just note that this isn't—this is a bottom-up movement.

The concerns that so many Americans have, this is from the people.

This isn't candidate Kamala Harris saying, "I won, give me the election."

This is her supporters saying, "We don't believe you lost. Can you please look into this and make sure?"

Because far too many things look irregular.

Far too many things don't make sense.

So, in the spirit of that, I have a guest today who you probably have heard about.

He's called online "DireTalks," goes by that alias, and he is part of a group of grassroots organizers called the Election Truth Alliance.

That video you watched in the beginning of the show just now was compiled by them.

And he is going to reveal his true identity right now on "Lights On," because he believes that there is absolutely nothing that can be held back in this moment.

So please join me in welcoming, by the way, one of the organizers for 14th Now, "DireTalks."

Hello. Awesome. I am so happy to be here.

It was something when, you know, we—we've had these last few weeks and there was just so much concern about, you know, everything, and so I knew I had to step up and speak out.

And I'm just—I'm glad that things seem to work out in such a very specific way, and we've just taken such advantage of it, so.

Well, tell us first—I want you to tell me in a minute about Election Truth Alliance, but first, tell us who you are.

Okay. Well, so my—I'm actually a—I'm First Lieutenant Taylor, a U.S. Army Signal Officer in the National Guard.

I work in cybersecurity.

I have a bachelor's degree in network security and information systems.

I was—I've spent about 5 years now in service.

I was a 25 Bravo when I was enlisted, and then I got my degree and then I commissioned.

So I've—I've been doing tech stuff.

I've been working in the cyber and the computer tech field for—forever.

I grew up with computers, playing games and learning how things work, and coding.

And so I work with a company, civilian side, that does network monitoring, real-time network monitoring.

And I do data analysis with them, and we look at, like, signature alerts, we look at traffic.

So I'm not new—was not new to data analysis at all when all of this started happening.

And, yeah, so I've got a good background.

And what specifically drove all of this momentum was I started talking about the—the inconsistencies in the data.

I started talking about why some things looked anomalous.

And then that's when the grassroots organization took over, and there were people who were like, "I want to help. I want—we got to do something. We got to speak out."

And I had a very qualified data analyst say, "Hey, let's organize. Let's make an organization. Let's—let's be the—if no one else is going to do their job and talk about these issues, let's do it."

And I was like, "I'm already here."

And so he's been amazing.

And so they—they specifically are the Election Truth Alliance.

They—we have a website, I believe that's linked in the description.

All of this data we're going to talk about today is in the description.

It's all there. I've got a Dropbox.

All of our analysis on this specific—and the thing is, we have more data.

This is just what we're going to— We're going to get to all of that, but by the way, in the description of this video right now, Nathan has linked to all of that data, so you can actually access it directly yourself.

But go ahead, I'll let you continue. And—and so a couple things I wanted to mention.

So everyone's like, "Hey, you're—you're crazy. This is Election Now."

This is not Election Now. This is election analysis.

As Jessica said, there's a few things.

Auditing and verification is a prod of a—it is a part of a normal democratic process.

And we see it in countries that hold true to their government is they're checking things.

They're double-checking things.

Even in, I believe, Georgia, they had simulations running in parallel with their election, and so it was also helping them determine if there was fraud or not.

And so we're failing. I feel like, depending on how—how well this takes off or not, you know, it's—I just—we need to get this out there.

And— Can I interrupt you for a second?

Because as to what you said, we need to get this out here.

I'm going to be really transparent with our viewers.

I was—I was hesitant to have this conversation before January 6 because I did not want to divert our focus at all from the 14th Amendment issue.

And it's a straightforward issue, and it—like I said, regardless of the so-called will of the people, this is a backstop that our founders put into Section 3 to safeguard us, even when the people do not safeguard themselves from an insurrectionist.

That said, I have been joined over these past few days by an extraordinary team of organizers, Nathan being one of them.

And I—I hope you don't mind me saying this, he's—he's basically begged me to let him share this information with you on this platform.

And I—he shared with me more tonight just how much he's putting himself on the line to do this.

He also initially wanted to do this remaining under his alias, and I—I told him, as you know, to lend credence to the presentation and for my credibility that I needed to be able to share who you are and your background.

So I want our viewers to understand, first of all, how much he's putting himself on the line and what he's—what he has risked to be able to share this information with you.

Yeah, I mean, there's major concerns since, you know, I am a commissioned officer and I am very nonpartisan in this regard.

And I 100%, you know, believe that our democratic process is not a political left-or-right issue.

This is—everyone should be involved in this, and we shouldn't be afraid to discuss these things.

And the truth will come out when you discuss these things in a reasonable manner.

And so I took an oath, you know, when I commissioned.

I took an oath when I enlisted, and I said, you know, I will protect and conserve the, you know, the Constitution, the American people, our way of life.

And what baffles me is other people have taken these oaths too, and yet they've not done their jobs.

They've not spoken out, they've not stepped up, and they've had every opportunity to do so.

And it's come to this.

It's come to us, you know, building this movement and getting this momentum when this issue could have been handled 4 years ago, right?

Well, it absolutely could have.

It needed to be handled immediately, both from a justice accountability standpoint and from an election security standpoint.

I mean, our viewers know that I left the previous network I was on to speak about the election security's concerns with election security experts, with people who are leaders in the field of election security, who are the top hackers in the country that are referenced by Kamala Harris in her book, speaking as to how easy it is to hack election machines.

And those individuals that I spoke to, Duncan Buell, Susan Greenhall from Free Speech for People, back right after the election were sounding the alarms and begging just for due diligence, just for recounts, because it was election deniers.

It was the people who caused the deadly insurrection that we are going to commemorate tomorrow who got access to software back in 2021.

And they have very clearly explained to me that these risks were never mitigated, especially in the ES&S systems, and some changes were made to Dominion, but it was not cross-checked enough to verify that these systems were actually safe.

Yeah, there's—there's many concerns.

And so what our kind of purpose has been is we've been like, well, there's all these speculations and concerns, but what can we show?

And so, as we'll see in this presentation we prepared and the videos and the data we've compiled, and it's all—it's all there, we—we wanted to show this in the clearest and most nonpartisan and distinct way possible.

And that's what we're hopefully going to do tonight.

Well, I'm—I'm going to turn it over to you.

I know you have a presentation ready, and you want to bring it up?

Yeah, let's bring this presentation up. Okay.

And so— Do you want to—do should we put it on the full screen?

Yeah, let's—let's make it big. Okay. Can they still see us when we do that? No.

There you go. Okay, well, we'll just talk through it for a little bit.

We can—we can maybe take breaks and discuss things. Sure.

And so, as we said before, this—this was made with the cooperation of the Election Truth Alliance.

We have—there's a website.

You can go if you want to help continue compiling data and doing analysis, please reach out.

They—they have that email option in there.

You—we can also—you can reach us on BlueSky specifically, I believe at TheBeesNees33.

And—and I wanted to give some shout-out.

Like, a lot of this data was made by people in different communities.

There's a Reddit community. There's a user so good in the Reddit community.

There's indie-like turtles in the Reddit community.

These are people who literally spent weeks and hours—hours and weeks of their time just getting the data and putting it out there for people to use and see and understand.

And then it made our job so much easier in sweeping in and getting the Clark County, Nevada data.

And so what this—what this presentation is specifically going to go, what we're going to talk about, is we're talking about Clark County, Nevada.

And so we have an analysis that specifically reveals a Russian tale.

And I'll talk about all of that.

And so any questions on this or— Well, I just want you to tell—tell me a little bit more about who comprises Election Truth Alliance.

Oh, yes. So we have many plans, but right now we've got—I think the last count was 6 or 7 of us that are actually formally involved in the organization.

And I think about 90% of the team is—is female.

And I think that's hilarious because people just don't understand how, you know, your skill sets are your skill sets, independent of who you are and where you come from.

There's no restrictions there.

And so, yeah, they have been amazing.

I've—they've—today they were talking to me because I've been on site here.

I've been on site here at DC for the last, what, 3, 4 days now? Since Friday?

It's—we—we've all lost track of time because we haven't—I don't see that.

We've just been—we've just been going. We've been working. We've been going.

And so I've been demanding things of them.

I've been like, "Hey, I need this because this will fit us." Right.

And so they've been helping with the—with everything. And it's—it's amazing.

And they were amazing. And I just—I'm so thankful that they were willing to step up.

And we have plans for the future, depending on what the next few days look like.

Right now it's—it's all about collecting the—or we've—we've got the data, we presented the data, but we're going to continue to expand.

We're going to do more analysis.

And so this data today, the theories we'll talk about, show some very concerning things.

And we want to continue to build upon that, and we want to show more—we want the truth out there.

We don't care who it hurts.

We don't care if it's left or right that gets impacted.

We want to prove that the elections were free and fair and true, or they weren't.

And I don't—there's no other ulterior motive.

It is truth.

When you think of—you think of everything that is on the line tomorrow, and it's starting January 20, to not know what a criminal negligence that truly is to anybody.

It is complicity to anybody who has the apparatus, the position, the power to investigate this.

It—it is unforgivable if they do not.

So I want you to take your grassroots investigation and share with us what you know. Yeah.

Yeah. And so, as we said, this is the overlay—the highway.

So we did this in conjunction.

And so when we go to the next slide here, this is the overview.

So we're going to analyze some 2024 election data as a whole, and then I'm going to show you some concerning parallels with other manipulated—other known manipulated elections.

And we'll talk through all the specifics.

And so this was the red flag for the investigation.

This is really what pointed us in the right direction.

And what this shows is—this is—this is drop-off votes.

And this—there was an abnormality for this election and in the swing states.

And so what this—can they see my—the cursor at all?

Yeah, they can see the cursor. Okay.

And so what this— No, actually, I think they can.

So this—this graph on the right here shows a comparison of the seven swing states versus the non-swing states.

And you see in the seven swing states, the average drop-off vote rate was negative for candidate Harris.

And so that's not on its own strange, but when you see it consistently across seven swing states, that raises eyebrows.

And then you'll notice out of the swing states, she had a positive.

This is what we would say is a more normal expected amount.

She was more popular than, you know, some of the other Democratic candidates outside the swing states.

And so we're like, well, what would cause her to underperform so aggressively in just the swing states?

And if you look at candidate Trump's percentage, he is what—what I believe it's 5 points, you know, over 5%.

And it's just an astronomically huge amount of drop-off votes.

And if you don't know what drop-off votes are, drop-off—drop-off votes is the difference between the presidential candidate of a party and the next down-ballot race, like the senator.

And so it—it kind of gives us a representation of how popular that candidate was compared to their party.

And—and in the swing states, you'll see that shift left to right, depending on if, you know, it's a more right-leaning or left-reading—left-reading county or a left-leaning state, and they flip.

Any questions on this?

Well, I do—my number one question whenever I see any of these graphs is, where are you getting your data? Where is this data coming from? Okay.

And so this data specifically, this was created by Smart Elections, and they are, I believe, a nonpartisan company that is doing the same thing that we want to do, which is highlighting issues with election security.

They want to improve our election security.

So they made this graph, and all it does is they went and they got all of the swing state vote counts for Harris and Trump, and they went and got all the vote counts for the senators.

It's all public data. You can find it online. You can find it per states.

And they just did the—the difference, and they put it in numbers for us. Okay.

All I want to say for a minute here is there's been so much, as—as you were describing to me earlier, like postmortem analysis of—of why Kamala Harris performed so poorly in comparison to the down-ballot candidates in the Democratic Party.

And I think what you're going to be showing us today, and I'm going to have more questions for you, is that that trend is too extreme to have occurred without manipulation.

The—the main concern is if we would have seen this in three or so states, you know, it could have been, you know, looked at and explained away.

But to see it across all seven swing states, and then when we actually look at the data and we see, it's absolutely abnormal.

Okay. So let's go back to your presentation. Okay.

So the next slide we're going to look at here is—this is where we're going to talk about the theories behind our concerns.

And so when—when we set out to do this, we didn't set out to prove anything.

I didn't set out to prove anything.

And I—I've been posting videos since the election happened, just talking theories and concerns.

And then this whole grassroots movement picked up, and, you know, the Election Truth Alliance became an entity.

And the main thing is we have—we really have only two theories that we can come up with for why we would see that really big difference in the swing states to the non-swing states for down-ballot votes.

And something we didn't even mention with Smart Elections, Stephen Spoonemore was a noted individual that has come up a few times when talking about the elections, if you've been involved in any of that community.

And he was a key individual because he was the first one to kind of say, "Hey, this looks weird, and I think it might be because of manipulation."

And he was like, "Well, we're seeing indications that they either added votes or they changed votes."

And the reason why he said that was because of this—this—this number, but he had it as down-ballot or he had it as drop-off votes?

No, he had it as bullet ballots.

He was calling them bullet ballots.

He had it as bullet ballots.

And— But there was also—now there was also some backtracking from Spoonemore on some of the data that he put out initially, right?

And I think that—that somewhat hurt his credibility and—and possibly the credibility of this entire effort.

What are your thoughts on that?

Well, one moment.

I'll go back a slide and let's—you want to see us again real quick? Sure.

Sure. We can talk about this for a minute before we get into it.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. So Spoonemore specifically, I've had some third-party discussions with him.

I've never actually been able to directly talk to him.

And— And I did reach out to him just to our letter—to our letter viewers know early on when I was beginning to cover this topic.

Yes. And I had reached out to him online.

I saw all of his posts and stuff, and he was kind of the first one to mention this.

And when I looked—when I looked at who he was and what he'd done, he also came up for a 2004 incident, I believe in—can't recall the state right now—but a similar issue where he was like, "Hey, this might be a man-in-the-middle attack."

I think it was Ohio.

And they investigated, and there was so much significant evidence to suggest it, but I don't know if there was any actual legal action that occurred because of that.

But he—he spoke out and he said, "Hey, this shows this. They had the means to do it because of the—the machines were passing the data," and he said they were manipulated.

And so there was this whole big thing.

So he's spoken out before, and he was technically right then.

And I think he was technically right this time, but the issues was we didn't have all the data.

We have a way larger—a much bigger picture now.

And so he was saying bullet ballots.

And what bullet ballots were was if someone only voted for president and nothing else.

And the thing is, the data makes it look like a bullet ballot when you don't have all the data.

We have everything now to show these concerns.

And now we know it was drop-off votes, and we see these patterns.

And we'll talk through that. Okay. Let's get back to that.

Okay. So our two theories was one, the theory and what pretty much what everyone has been told since the—the election is that Harris was an unpopular candidate, right?

That she, you know, didn't reach certain communities, that, you know, people didn't want her, that all of these—she didn't have a good plan.

And so these were the—the things we saw all over the news and the internet.

And to be honest— It just didn't jive with what we were seeing, right?

I mean, stadiums filled with people and all over the country.

I mean, Taylor Swift, Beyoncé level—record level—record level crowds, record level voter registration. Endorsements.

Endorsements from across the aisle.

And Donald Trump couldn't fill a high school auditorium. Right.

And—and his numbers got lower.

And that was the concern.

We started seeing changes in polling data, which I—it was very suspicious to me.

I don't even want to talk about that.

But it just—as you said, it didn't—it didn't match what we saw.

And then so we're like, "Okay, well, that's a good theory. Let's see how we can, you know, talk—what—what would suggest that she is or is not popular."

And then the other theory then is if for some reason, in some way that we can see that she was popular, there—it can only be manipulation.

This can only be abnormal.

And if you go to the next—yeah?

Anything else?

So the next slide here.

So what this graph shows us, this is the 2020 to 2024 comparison for presidential candidate votes.

And so these are all seven of the swing states from Arizona to Wisconsin.

And we have both Harris, Biden, and Trump.

And so you'll see the dark blue is Harris for '24.

The light blue is Biden for '22.

And then the two different shades of red and oranges is Trump.

And so when you look at the swing states, you'll immediately notice, "All right, so let's say she's an unpopular candidate, right?"

And so when we look at the swing states, if she was unpopular, we said drop-off votes show popularity, right?

They show how well you match your base or not.

So if you're exceeding in drop-off votes, you should be technically more popular than that Democratic in that party.

So across all seven swing states, that's a good indicator of popularity.

And so we see in Georgia, we see in Nevada, we see in North Carolina, and we see in Wisconsin that she actually, when you break down those numbers, this is a rounding, when you break down those numbers, she actually outperformed Biden in this election in those states compared to 2020.

And then when you look at Arizona, Michigan, and Nevada, you see that she's only a few less than—less than a couple hundred thousand, not even 100,000 votes under some of these locations.

Like a rounding error, honestly.

And that's the concern is this doesn't show that she was an unpopular candidate when compared to the Democratic base in 2020.

It doesn't match.

I'm going to now I don't know if any of our viewers are going to have the same question that I did, but this graph, when—when Nathan showed it to me initially, was—was really bothering me because I said, "This—if this is the same set of data that is showing these crazy drop-off numbers, why is she still showing up as popular in this—in this analysis?"

And what Nathan explained to me is that basically the manipulation was so even accounting for the manipulation, she still has levels of popularity that are visible in this set of data.

So the way I explained—the way I explained it is she was so popular that although there was significant manipulation, as we'll see in the data, she still exceeded Biden in 2020.

Like she was so popular.

In those states. Yes.

In those—those—those handful of swing states and—and almost matched in those other ones.

And so continuing on from this, when we look at the—the next slide, so this—what was the next theory, right?

That was, well, if she shows that she is popular and it—this doesn't suggest that she was an unpopular candidate because she matched and exceeded Biden in some on average.

When we look at the other theory then is manipulation.

And so if this was manipulation and we break this down to lower levels, we look at the—the county and the precinct, we look at the state, the county, and the precinct, what should we see to support or disprove that theory?

And so let's—let's try and disprove that this was manipulation, right?

And so when we—we want to look at a few things, we're going to look for inconsistencies with vote types.

So—and that means we have mail-in, we have early voting, and we have election day.

Those are the three types of votes you can—you can cast in this election generally, right?

There's also absentee.

But generally, those are the three fields we're going to see when we look at the actual data at the precinct levels.

And so the theory then is if this was manipulation, what of those—which of those three types of voting could fall outside their ability to have manipulated?

And so when we looked at the data, we see some concerns.

And the main concern is in Clark County, Nevada, in—in the description we've included this links to this data sets.

We have downloads.

We have multiple redundant backups of this data.

This is the CVR, the—the vote record data.

And it breaks it down by all those three types I mentioned.

It breaks it down by the tabulator ID and the precincts and everything.

And so this was the granule level of data we needed to get this full analysis.

And so what we see in—in mail-in ballots for Clark County in 2024 is we see this blue line here at the top with Harris, and there's another blue line that's overlaid.

You can't even really see it, is Senator Rosen.

And— It's nearly identical. It's—it's matching.

And that's what we would honestly see.

I mean, in some swing states, you shouldn't shift too far.

If you're unpopular—if you're significantly unpopular, you'll fall below that number.

But she's matching in mail-in ballots.

And this is—this is official data they—they gave us.

So if we're to take this at face value and suggest, "Hey, this is true," mail-in ballots, she's matching her party.

And so the concern then is, would mail-in ballots fall outside of their ability to manipulate?

And we'll—we'll talk a little bit more about how we speculate on their—their—their window for manipulation. Okay.

And so this next slide here is a—

Can I ask you the question—a question about mail-in ballots right now?

Because— Yeah, let's—let's talk a little bit about that.

We—so many of the concerns I think that have come probably your way and my way is people who say their mail-in ballot was never—never showed up as counted or received.

And—and yet it appears that your analysis shows that the mail-in ballot trends are not crazy.

And I've had so many people reach out to me about their mail-in ballots not ever showing up as registered on the websites.

I've had people saying that they—they got told their mail-in ballots went to other states.

Yeah. And actually, we have a graphic right there.

This was from an AP article just at—just in November.

It says multiple elections offices report receiving mailed ballots misdirected from other states.

And—and so when you add this and compare this to the theory that they had the ability to manipulate certain types of voting and mail-in ballots would be the thing they can't manipulate, well, it would make sense then that they would try and target mail-in ballots to reduce their count because they—they're going to help that candidate win because they can't remove those votes.

And so it would make sense we were seeing issues with mail-in ballots across the country.

That's their focus on target.

And what's—what data I would like to compile more of after this is I want to look at how many mail-in ballots Biden got in 2020 and see how that affected his total numbers as well.

Because I think those are important for continued analysis on this.

Because as I said, we're not—today is—it's today it's 2020.

But in the future, I—we will—we want to make sure everything is above board.

Everyone deserves the truth. 2024.

2024. I'm sorry. I'm—I'm living in the past apparently. All right. Good catch. Okay.

And let's go back to the presentation here.

It doesn't seem to be showing—

Our slide is—back one? Let's try—Okay. Go—go forward to— Okay.

There we go. Is that where you wanted to be?

I think we're missing a slide, but we will make do. Okay. Yeah.

So I'm actually going to highlight this slide first.

And so what this is, I know this looks crazy.

Looks like, you know.

And so what this is, this is—that—this is Clark County, Nevada.

Their mail-in voting data.

And as I said, we got this from CVR.

It's all there.

And so what we did is we graphed this.

This was—this is recent.

This was made specifically by, I believe, So Good from the Reddit community as well as, you know, some other individuals throwing in from the election—the Election Truth Alliance.

And so what this graph shows is at the bottom axis here from 0 up to 140, this is the number of ballots that are fed into the tabulator.

And so every one of these dots up and down represents a tabulator across the county of Nevada and their each precincts.

And so we have a lot of tabulators here.

I don't remember the exact count, but for example, early voting was like 900 tabulators.

So I think mail-in voting had a significant amount.

And so what this graph shows us is that as you feed more votes, more ballots into the tabulators, you get this pattern.

And so this pattern shows, you know, very a—a chaotic, you know, distribution.

And on the left here is the percentage of the vote that each candidate got.

And so the 50%, you're going to see a mirroring across the 50%.

That's normal because it's—it's yes or no, right?

It's left or right.

And so you should see if, you know, for example, Trump got 60%, we should see the opposite value of what, 40% or so for Harris or things like that.

And so what this graph highlights and the reason we're using this, this is a base representation of what normal data should look like.

This is—it's chaotic, yet it has the—you see it kind of— Right.

There's just no regular pattern as to what every tabulator is going to be.

Exactly. It's completely random.

We should see a normal distribution of data that's spread out like this.

So—and so when we go back to kind of highlight, this is early voting for Clark County.

And I remember when we talked about the theory, so we said, "Hey, mail-in ballots may be outside their window to manipulate."

And we established that Harris is matching the—the senator, the next down-ballot candidate.

So she has almost 0% of a drop-off vote rate in mail-in ballots in Clark County for 2024.

And so now we're going to look at early voting and— That's where things get weird.

This is where things are concerning.

And we're not even going to touch fully—we're not even going to touch the election day stuff because we—we really don't need to for this theory.

Like the analysis—and I will follow up on that and we—we do have data for election day, but we don't even get to that point.

This is so concerning.

And so for Clark County with their early voting, this graph shows what those other graphs were showing as broken down is we see two lines, two colors.

Red is Trump.

The—the above line for the red here is Trump and the lower is his next down-ballot candidate, which is the senator.

And the blue is Harris.

And you'll notice that Harris is consistently underperforming her party everywhere across this county.

She never once matches or exceeds her party, the senator.

Senator, I believe it was Ruby— It's Rosen. Yes. Jackie Rosen. Jackie Rosen. That's exactly right.

And so this is the first kind of red flag.

And this matches the swing state averages we saw.

So we're seeing this and it expands outward to other counties as well in Nevada.

And so when we continue on with this, this is that early voting.

And remember here where we showed the distribution like this.

So we're doing the same distribution graph in the same way.

So as you feed in ballots, and this is for 2020 and 2024.

And I believe things got resized just a little bit, but that's okay.

So this is early voting for Clark County for 2020 and 2024.

And on the left here, this shows, as I said, we—we expect to see something chaotic and look more like early voting because we know that's—that's the baseline.

And if we take that at base value, it should be a good representation.

And so when we look here at the left graph, it's the same thing.

As you feed in ballots, you should see this chaotic split, you know, on the 50% line where, you know, whoever has the—the most overall wins, but it's—it's going to be this back and forth.

It's going to be kind of this overlapping scatter.

And so what was concerning is when we look at 2020 for Clark County, we—we get to the 600 ballots counted mark.

That means they fed in 600 ballots to that tabulator, to every tabulator in—in the county.

And once that 600 threshold was met, we start to see separation.

We start to see a pattern emerge.

And we shouldn't see a pattern at all.

It should taper off like a normal distribution.

We—instead, we see it spread out and we—we see it separate.

And this was a concern. I didn't want to talk about 2020.

And so we just—we're just going to use everything below that 60—600 amount as kind of more what we should see, right?

We—I'm not even going to talk about this.

We'll follow up.

But when we look at 2024, a direct comparison is it's absolutely a concern.

Instead of seeing that normal distribution like mail-in ballots, instead of seeing the more normal sub-600 from 2020 for early voting, we immediately start to see separation.

And as I said, you—so as you feed in ballots, it looks like after you got around the 400 mark for ballots fed into the—the tabulator, into every tabulator across the county, it starts to show a trend where candidate Trump is beginning to average 60% and more, and then Harris is only averaging 40% and less.

There's no in between.

There's no 50/50s.

And as we—as we—and we—like we shouldn't see it separate.

And so what's concerning is, as I said, we see 400, we start to see that division and it slowly grows.

And then once we hit like 600, it becomes a clear separation.

And I—I don't have the—the only—so the theory that people are like, "Well, how—what—what could cause this that wasn't manipulation?"

And they're like, "Well, maybe there's some type of bias in heavily red or left counties."

And so I was like, "Okay. Well, the problem is this is the entire county.

The data—this is all the tabulators and they are spread out across the county.

There's no grouping here.

There's no—this data shouldn't show any patterns like this because they were spread out and there's no heavy bias left or right because it was every county.

We—they—it wasn't just in certain left counties, in certain right counties.

It was every county—or sorry, every precinct in the county. Okay.

And so what does this mean, right?

And so, you know, what—what could even cause this?

And so as we talked about before, if there was manipulation in this election and mail-in ballots were not manipulated as the data somewhat suggests with the distribution looking normal, remember the graph with the— Yes, I do. The shape.

So that looks normal, didn't really show any concerns.

And so now early voting shows concerns about it being manipulated.

And so this would be— You're going to have to ask my—answer my question and the viewer's question as to why it appears manipulated both in 2020 and 2024.

Okay. So in 2024, this looks like a vote flipping algorithm that kicks off after around 400 votes are fed into each tabulator.

In 2024? In 2024. Okay.

In 2020, it looks like a vote flipping algorithm that kicks off after the 600 mark and it's not as aggressive.

And about the vote flipping— That's what the data— In whose—in whose favor?

In candidate Trump's favor. In 2020? In 2020. Yes.

So I mean, this is—this is like shocking that you're saying this to me, but this is—this almost sounds like you're suggesting that they were trying to pull this off in 2020.

The data would indicate that.

And we do have additional data that suggests this as well.

But as I said, I kind of want to focus on 2024. Okay. All right. All right. All right.

I at least had to get at least a thought on that because our viewers wanted to know and I wanted to know. Okay.

We will leave—we will focus on this year's election for now. Yeah. I apologize.

We got out of the weeds then, but we are not out of the weeds now.

All right. Next slide.

And so this is that same data we were looking at, but we've—we've graphed it.

Okay. I want to—I want to stop for one second.

Somebody says, "I'm sorry. You guys sound like the—like the pillow guy.

All of these states have ratified their votes with no prior challenges.

Why aren't you focusing on the 14th Amendment?"

Well, I have not slept for two weeks to focus on the 14th Amendment.

So I'll correct you on that point.

But as far as the pillow guy, if you want to address that, I know you have some thoughts there.

Yes. Yeah.

So I've had—I've had this come up many times when I'm presenting data like this and talking about this.

And I think the—the distinction here is, well, for one, this data is coming from people who've collected this data.

There's no higher ulterior motive.

There's no agenda.

We're not being told to do this.

Like, you know, the last time people brought up concerns about the election, it was pushed from the top down.

And so this is the people speaking up and saying something isn't right.

Something's wrong.

And then now, you know, people with experience with data analysis have stepped up to do the hard job and say, "Hey, these are—it's showing manipulation and we can show you the data."

And I have—as I said, go download the data.

It's in the description. You can do this analysis yourself.

And we have more analysis here.

And this is publicly available data. Yes.

You can—you can download it off the website.

If—if people had the—the re—the skills that you—your team does, they could— They could do this analysis.

They could take this data and do the exact same analysis for themselves.

And the thing is, the—the hardest part was just bringing all this data into one place.

That was the work that we had to achieve.

And I mean, it's here for you.

Okay. Let's—let's keep going.

Lights on after dark, but we want to sleep at some point.

At least our audience wants to sleep at some point.

Tonight at least. Tonight at least. Make up for the last couple days. Week. There we go. Okay.

And so what this data shows, and I can speed things up a little bit, is this data is that data we just showed where that separation happens.

And it's just in a different format and different axis.

And the axis shows the percentage of the votes and then the—the total votes per candidate from the bottom and then to the left.

And so blue is Harris, red is Trump in this case.

And this is all 2024 data.

As I said, we're just going to focus on 2024 early voting for Clark County, Nevada.

And so we see that separation we were seeing before very clearly.

And so this is a concern, as I said.

It—it should be overlapping and it should be more of a distributed normal—normal pattern.

And so what we're going to do now is we're going to pull out aspects of the data and do some consumer-like analysis.

And so on the right here, I have Trump's performance for early voting.

And this is his obvious portion of the—the portion of the graph.

And so next slide here, we're going to talk about bell curve analysis.

I know for some of you who had to, you know, who stayed awake during your math classes in—in high school, we—sorry.

I feel like telling the viewers now that I was in—Sure.

I was in BC Calculus. BC? Yeah. AP. AP?

BC Calculus in my junior year of high school.

That's impressive. It was—I was a math—I loved math. Ironically.

And I was so sad that I didn't have any math left to take in college.

Ironically, my—like I didn't enjoy math growing up until I—Yeah.

I got into formulas and algorithms and—and AI and—and doing like the—the computers are doing the work, the—the analysis.

And I'm just putting in the data.

I'm just, you know, making it—it work. Okay.

But I admittedly do not remember the principle of a bell curve.

So you're going to have to remind me.

Let's—let's talk about it. Okay. And so what is a bell curve?

So a bell curve is a representation of normal data behavior.

It's normal patterns. It's a—it's a distribution.

And so what you should see is normal data should fall within these deviations for—for the bell curve.

And so a majority of the data is going to be in the middle and it's going to be symmetrical left and right.

That's how it—it plays out.

So you'll have outliers on the left and the right and they get less common the further you get from the standard expected normal behavior.

And so we should see this kind of a curve.

And it's called a bell curve because, you know, it's curved like a bell, if you will.

So this is normal. This is what we should see in non-manipulated data.

And so when we look—sorry.

When we look at Clark County for 2024 early voting, it doesn't match a normal distribution at all.

Now tell us what are on these two axes.

So as we were talking about before, this is the—the bottom here.

For some reason, it seems to have dropped off.

This is the percentage of the vote.

So remember when we talked about how once you fed 60 or once you fed 600 or so 400 and then you start to see separation and then 600 you start to see heavy separation.

And then you start to see, as I said, you see a minimum threshold of 60-ish percent for Trump and—and higher.

And that's what this shows is this is the 60% marker.

So around here, I know you can't see my mouse, but to the right of the 50, 60%, and you see the majority of his votes that were tabulated after the 400 and after the 600 thresholds, this is where his data falls.

And so later on, we have the opposite for Harris and you see she falls below the 50, the 40%.

And so what does this mean?

And as I said, it doesn't match a normal distribution and it suggests this was manipulated.

And well, how would you—what—what would be the cause?

And so this would be a algorithmic manipulation, as we talked about.

You exceed a threshold, you automatically, by algorithm, start flipping things.

And—and yeah. Like, I mean, any questions on this? Any—any?

Well, listen. Let's take it to your—your—what you're comparing it to.

And I know you're going to take it to the country that we can never forget about because it's governing our—our—our elections and politics.

We had one more slide in here.

So—and this is the opposite.

So as I said, we're seeing the opposite trend.

Okay. For Harris, which it—just because it's opposite is—is fine, is normal.

The issue is that we're not seeing a complete bell curve, meaning this part of the data has been changed and taken because we should see it complete this bell curve.

And we don't see that. Right.

And as I said, this suggests that votes were taken from this data set and given to the other data set.

Right.

And that's why it's the—basically the mirror image of the Trump one, right?

Well, it's supposed to mirror.

Yeah. Just because every vote that Trump didn't get— Is not for Trump, is for Harris. Gotcha.

And vice versa. Okay.

It's just— But we should see a complete bell curve and we don't. And we don't. Gotcha.

And then as we saw before, a majority—like this is—this data here suggests there was votes added in. Okay.

Oh, and—and so what this—this part here, this left skew, this tail, as I said, we should see a complete curve and we don't.

And this left tail suggests that this was somewhere closer to where the normal data was falling.

And so we're seeing it shifted over. Okay.

And then the opposite here, right? Here's the tail.

The tail is sitting where—where is that?

A little bit above the 50, 55, 60% mark or so.

And so that—that votes were potentially taken from that portion of the graph and taken away.

And that's why there's a hole. It's, you know, not a complete curve. Gotcha.

As I said, we're—we're kind of summarizing and I've—we've posted the actual, like, clinical analysis and the correct terms and the verbiage and everything so that, you know, the statistical analysis is who would be upset at me, you know, get—get everything that they believe should be said correct.

And so go look at those videos, go look at those analysis.

If anything we say here is like, "Hey, that wasn't technically right," we're trying to summarize for you in our best way with what we have here.

And so looking at—and so what we wanted to do is we saw that data in Clark County for early voting that didn't match a normal distribution.

And we said, "Hmm."

And someone was—and—and user on Reddit, actually specifically user on Reddit said, "Hey, I've seen this before."

And then they started linking and posting about an issue that occurred a few years ago and has been occurring in a certain country.

And specifically this concept of this graph is called a—a Russian tail.

And so what this means is Russian data scientists in Russia talk about their elections and talk about analyzing the data.

And I—I brought this as an example.

In 2020, Russian—there was a Russian constitutional referendum.

And so what that was is they were trying to make changes to their—their constitution specifically to allow President Putin to extend his terms beyond the restrictions.

And so this data represents that vote.

And so what we see is we see the same issue of this doesn't match a normal distribution and it specifically has this left skewing tail.

And so what the—the Russian data scientists did is they said, "Hey, we're going to dub this left skew here when—when we're talking about voting data. Literally, we're going to call it a Russian tail."

And it's a token term. And everywhere you see it, it—it suggests manipulation.

And so anything you want to talk about here?

No. I mean, I think it speaks for itself.

And so when we—when we took this data, we did a direct comparison to a bell curve.

You see the same issue.

It lacks this— Central mirror.

It—it doesn't—yeah.

For one, it's not symmetrical at all.

For two, it should be a consistent bell curve because we should see, you know, the—the most data fall into the normal portion and then it should get less likely to occur the further out you get from—from that normal expected value.

And so what we see here is—and as explained to me by a very strongly opinionated data analyst that I've been working with as well—is he specifically says, "Hey, so when we're talking about the Russian tail, what's actually occurring here and why we have—we have a little distribution or a little bell curve here, do you want to take a guess of why this is here?"

At the beginning? Mm-hmm. I don't know. Tell me.

And so what's happening is when we see this manipulation of data, what's— Well, it looks like it's—it's beginning to trend normally and then it gets interfered with. Exactly.

So the way to describe it is there's actually technically two different data sets here.

One is the normal data that occurred naturally, that was natural voting—voting patterns.

And that was the begin—that's the tail.

The tail is actually the normal data.

And this—this right portion, as you get further from the tail, this is the manipulated data that was added in. Okay.

And so the concern here is this is—would be two overlapping data sets.

And I didn't put the second distribution, but we would see that they overlap and it creates this join here.

And that's what the Russian tail represents, is it's two different data sets.

One is normal. The—the—the tail is the normal portion.

And then the right portion that leads up is the added on and manipulated part of the data.

And yeah, I mean, what this suggests then is it suggests that the actual vote percentage was significantly under the 50% mark and then this manipulated portion that was probably taken from the no vote because that's the only other place it could come from was added in.

And so this was a comparison.

This doesn't match normal distribution at all.

This is super—this—this shows manipulation. Okay. Right.

And so this was the 2020 Russian constitutional referendum.

And so what we want to do now is we're like, "Okay, well, how does this add up to Clark County, Nevada for 2024 early voting data?"

And so we—as I said, we—we've seen this before.

This is a Russian tail.

And I've overlaid the—I've overlaid the—the bell curve here on the right for Trump's data.

And you'll see that he's sitting the—the suspected, the theoretical normal part of the data that wasn't manipulated is just under and around the 50.

It's on the low end of the 50%.

The peak is on the low end of the 50%.

And so this would suggest that votes were taken from a external data set, as we said, the no or the—the other votes, which in this case for Trump would be Harris.

And those votes were added in and created this second portion that they tried to play off as the normal vote data.

And one clear thing here I—I believe is—oh, I lost my train of thought.

Any questions on this?

Well, yeah, I can—I just want to take a minute here to—

Do you want to pull up the camera?

Address the concept of—Yeah, questions.

Well, you're—we're talking about Clark County right now. We are.

And this kind of came to light a week or so ago with under the thread on Reddit, leaked—leaked Clark County. Ah, yes. Yes.

And I just want to make one clarification.

And then I actually want to bring in a comment that I have from one of the experts that I talked to, but it's not actually leaked.

Can we just—Yeah.

So that was, as I said, remember when I talked about Spoon of More and—and when you—when you jump to conclusions, right?

You don't have the full data, so you got to be careful.

And so what actually happened with the whole Clark County, Nevada leaked data was that data went up on their website.

And when people started looking at it and downloading it, it had a confidential title on it.

And then I believe they moved it.

And so it went down.

And people made the assumption, "Hey, this is confidential leaked information they weren't supposed to put out there."

And it's—it's been moved and the link doesn't work anymore.

It's taken down.

They—you know, they—they realized that they made a mistake.

It's up on the website now. So it wasn't actually leaked. It's public data. It's public data.

And so you can go get it.

And yeah, it was just a misconception there.

And as I said, we—we also fell prey to that concern of, "Hey, this is leaked data," but it wasn't.

And so that clarification is—I did want to—I wanted to share—I shared actually that thread with Duncan Buhl, who is the professor emeritus at the University of South Carolina, who came on my show right in the weeks after the election, echoing the calls.

And he is far from a conspiracy theorist.

He actually usually pours cold water on—on most of the theories that I throw—Yeah.

That I throw his way.

And that's—that's okay. Yeah.

And it's a good—it's—I mean, to be a skeptic is—is the right position to take.

It's doable. And to be probative. Yeah.

But this—I wanted to share what he said.

He said, "We cannot debunk the allegations because we don't have data to debunk the allegations, but we believe what we see is really just grounds for more questions and analysis."

And then actually towards the end of what he sent me, I want to read it directly.

He did his own sort of analysis of just this, I think, specific set of data.

And he said, "We did a scatter plot of DRE serial number against the number of precincts that showed up in the CVR," which is the cast vote record for that serial number.

"We find it very curious that that scatter plot is almost exactly the same as the scatter plot of Republican minus Democrat against serial numbers."

And he said, "But let's look into why these patterns occur before foul is called." Mm-hmm. So.

And that would make sense given if there was manipulation and portions of the data were taken from one group and given to the other, the difference would be transparent.

It'd be the same, right? And it makes perfect sense.

And yeah. So anything else? Yeah. Let's continue. Let's continue.

And I think—I think what Nathan was telling me earlier when I shared that comment from Duncan is that your analysis does expand.

We—we expand. We continue.

We get more—we have more data.

And that was the point is we—we have that swing state data to suggest anomalies in—in drop-off voting.

And then we've drilled down and used Clark County as a representation of this is why we're seeing it at the large level.

And then now we're looking at why it occurred at the precinct level.

And yeah, as I said, this—this is—there's strong parallels between the early voting performance in Clark County for Trump and the manipulated data of the Russians' 2020 constitutional referendum, the Russian tail.

Okay. Let's go to the next slide. Let's go to the next slide.

And so what this is, this is a 2024 Georgian Dream Party fraud in the country of Georgia.

And so the Georgian Dream Party is, I believe, the technically the majority party right now.

And they have—they've been accused of strong ties to—to Russia.

And they've been accused of Russian influence in the election for them.

And so we wanted to do the same analysis we did on the 2020 referendum, Russian conf—refendum, the Russian constitution change.

We want to do the same thing to the Georgia referendum. Referendum. Thank you.

And so we did the same thing. We looked at the distribution.

And so on the left here is the—the votes for Georgia for their precincts.

And the way it's kind of read here is I can't specifically see it, but I believe it was something around the 60% at the bottom. It's by percent.

So at the bottom, let's say you get 60%. Are you going to make it bigger for me?

Ah, perfect.

And so the way this at the bottom acts the x-axis, you see the percentage of votes for Georgia—Georgian Dream Party in precincts.

And so, for example, let's go to the 60% of the votes.

And then you go up and let's say we're going to look at for 500 precincts, how do they perform?

And so that—that connection there is where how this data kind of makes sense.

So 60%, you see they peak out around 700 precincts, they got 60% of the—the votes in.

And that's kind of how you read this.

And so what this shows is this—it shows more of a normal distribution.

More of a normal distribution. But the issue here is we still see signs of manipulation.

Instead of being the full bell curve like we would expect, we see a chunk of it shifted over to the right.

And that's what this shows is instead of this continuing up, this left portion, when we're looking at winning the vote, as you grow in the percentage and as you go further and further right, you win, right?

And so any type of data when it's shifted rightwards, that's manipulation to win.

And so we see a portion of this bell curve missing.

And it would suggest this was manipulated and these votes were shifted.

And so, as I said, this shows a percentage of the votes.

And so this shows a percentage of the votes were shifted over in those precincts.

Any questions on this? Nope. Seems to be the same kind of trend we're seeing.

It is the same kind of trend.

And by the way, the Georgians, shout out to them for protesting in the streets. Yes.

They—Russian interference in their elections.

They spoke up about their concerns. They were very transparent.

"Hey, you know, all this data doesn't add up."

And that's—that's respectable because the thing is, if you do the analysis and you do the auditing, you—any concerns can be addressed.

And that's the point is it's—there's not—we shouldn't be afraid of talking about this data because the truth will come out.

And if the truth is—is true, then why are we afraid?

Why are we scared? Right?

Unless you're trying to hide something.

And so what we did is we took the 2024 Georgian Dream Party's performance in their election and we compared it to Trump's performance in—in early voting in—in Clark County.

And I mean, we don't see as strong of a parallel as you did with the—the Russian tail symbol, but they both have indications of manipulation.

What was specifically strange here is we saw some of the same kind of percentage shifts, though.

We saw, you know, after you get around 40% and higher, a little bit of a—a drop, and then you—you go back up to that range of 55, 60%.

But this is likely because, as we said, you want to win.

So you're going to shift everything past the 50%, but you probably don't want to go too far.

So that 55 to 60% margin is—that's winning. Okay.

And so you win too big, people start asking questions.

It looks—it looks very, very phishy, right? Yeah.

And so to summarize, as we said, with this theory, the theory when we—we kind of came in here is, was Harris a unpopular candidate?

And so we looked at the swing states, those seven swing states we highlighted at the beginning, and we saw she has a negative 1 point, I think 1.38% or so.

So she's underperforming in the swing states compared to her party.

And that was a concern.

Trump is significantly overperformance in the swing states.

And you're outside the swing states, they look this—they look more reasonable.

That 1 to 2% overperformance, the drop-off votes, that's reasonable.

You could—that makes sense.

And you see that in—in past election patterns up to a point.

And so this was the flag.

And then, as I said, when we looked into it, we saw this top graph here shows those five swing states.

Let me talk about it.

So, but when we looked into it, we saw that Harris was actually matching, slightly exceeding, but she was exceeding in, I believe, three or four of the swing states that we talked about in the beginning.

And then in the remaining amount, she was only just a little bit under Biden for vote totals.

And that doesn't show that she was significantly unpopular, which is what the—the drop-off vote suggests, that she was significantly unpopular.

And Trump was significantly more popular than his party.

And so what this graph shows here, what we've done is at the top is the pre-corrected drop-off votes in 2024.

And this is for five swing states.

And everyone's like, "Well, why five?"

But, well, first, you have two colors.

You have the—the blue Democratic Party for 2024, which is Harris.

You have the red Republican Party for 2024, which is Trump.

And so we have five swing states.

And so what this data is based on is SmartElections released data doing an analysis on the drop-off vote rates and performance issues of five of these swing states.

And what they specifically did is they said, "Hey, let's look at that threshold of how badly is Harris underperforming in those states, and let's compare it to how much Trump is winning and how many votes the next down-ballot candidate got."

And so they—they said, "Hey, in these five swing states, we have a number."

And this is also in our sources, in our data. You can go and look at this.

It's on their website for SmartElections.

And so they said, "Hey, here's the numbers for these five states for how many votes are missing from Harris compared to her party."

And then they said, "Hey, let's compare this to how much Trump is winning in these states."

And so that's what we've done here and—and we're showing.

And so what we did and what SmartElections did is they said, "Hey, if we take that amount of votes that Harris was underperforming compared to her party in every—every one of these five swing states, and we take them from Trump's numbers and we add them back to Harris's numbers, if there was manipulation, right, if—if votes were taken and flipped, and we add them back to Harris, we see that in all five of these swing states, North Carolina, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada, and Arizona, that she is exceeding Trump's totals in all five of them."

And—and a distinction. No, no, no. Hold up. And sorry. And a distinction. Sorry.

And so a distinction I wanted to make is this analysis, this—these numbers that SmartElections made, these were conservative numbers.

These were—they just as popular as the candidate, not overperforming.

And as we said, we see outside the swing states that 1 to 2% is normal for overperformance compared to the next down-ballot race.

And so they just did 0%.

So this is underestimating how many votes could have been taken if there was a vote flipping manipulation, an algorithm.

Okay. Your question. Okay. I do think you answered it.

Do you want— And that is the—leave the graph on it. Okay.

Because I—I—I was looking at the second graph and thinking, "Okay, explain to me better where you're getting the data for the corrected drop-off."

And you're basically—you're basically— It's the difference.

Bringing it to zero.

So there's no drop-off.

And using those votes that—that would have been in the negative space to just give back to Kamala Harris.

If—if Harris was a popular candidate, like the—the mail-in ballot data suggests, the performance in the actual vote performance in the swing states would suggest that she was at least as popular as Biden, if not more popular, then yeah, that would be closer to zero on average.

And so especially in swing states, those are highly polarized.

And—and I mean, as we talked about before, there was—there was suggestions to see record levels of engagement in this election, record levels of registration in this election.

And that were—it's—it's strange that we're missing that level of expectation performance.

You know, people—it's—we're missing counts.

And so. And would that possibly also account?

Now, we talked earlier for a minute about all of the people that did not have their mail-in ballot counted.

Do you have a theory for the others, the others that voted in person, the others that had their just voting records disappear altogether?

I—I don't know. I don't have enough data to really make a good, you know, provable theory on that.

To be honest, I'm not even sure.

I do know, as I said, with the mail-in ballots, the concern was if—if they were outside your ability to manipulate, you'd want to try and get rid of as many as possible, stop them from arriving in time, get them thrown out.

And that would make sense.

But yeah, I have no idea what—how they would even be able to specifically target people just not even getting their votes counted.

Like, that's insane to me that you would have—what—what would you do?

Throw their ballot out just after they vote?

Just throw it out?

It seems like some kind of manipulation to the recordkeeping software.

I don't—I'm not even sure.

And there's been speculation on that.

And as I don't have enough data to even speculate on any type of virtual record, virtual, you know, you know, hypothetically, if people were to start signing up and saying, "Hey, you know, you pay me money and I sign up for this and I sign up other people," and now you have that data, you could take that data.

You could potentially add votes if they didn't vote.

But I'm not—I don't have enough data to really speculate on the means to do it and how it would have impacted the election if it did occur.

And that's really what we want to show is if this did happen, as the data suggests, that there was manipulation, we want to show the impact.

And as I think we showed in those five swing states, if there was vote manipulation even close to the levels we are estimating, Harris would have won these five swing states.

So, and let me look here what our—our next slide is.

And so what this specifically shows, as I was summarizing before, is this shows she was a popular candidate compared to Biden.

And so that—that was honestly kind of the wrap-up of the thing.

But I—I want to make one more point here.

And so as I think we—we talked about before, if there—if so for the theory of a vote flipping algorithm at the precinct level, here's a distinction I don't think I covered yet for why we think mail-in ballots should be a good indicator of performance is if you had the ability to manipulate the election, how would you do it, right?

What—what means would you do it?

And the most likely mean, the—the most, I would say, effective mean is going to be trying to have influence over the vote tabulators.

And so as we were looking at, that was all vote tabulator data showing manipulation.

And so something I want to highlight is for—for early voting and election day voting, the process for that is different than mail-in.

So mail-in ballots, when you submit your mail-in ballots, I think they go to the county level.

They go to a centralized location and they get processed and counted there.

And that—that data gets, you know, sent off digitally and—and added up.

When you vote at—when you vote early day and election day, you go to the precincts and you—and you go there and it gets voted or you vote there and then it gets tabulated there and then it gets digitally sent off from the precinct levels.

And so what our data suggests and what the theory that we've not been able to disprove yet suggests is that if there was manipulation on the scale we're estimating and the—the data suggests happened, then there was a vote manipulation.

There was a hack at the tabulation level.

The vote counters were either hacked, they were flipping votes as ballots—as ballots were being fed in, which is what we saw.

Or there was potential opportunity to try and influence and change that data in transit from the precincts if you were to upload them using certain systems.

So questions on that? Okay. Yeah.

So this is a question I asked. I asked Nathan.

I keep removing myself. Here we go.

And that question is, I mean, you're kind of describing somewhat of a grand conspiracy here or a number of conspiracies.

Can you kind of give justification for how you think something of this scale or—or how physically it could have been carried out?

So that's the concern is I can kind of speculate, but I—I really need more data to say anything with, like, concrete.

But is data going to give you the answers? I don't know. Yeah.

Because I don't have the data. Sorry. I don't have the data. Yeah.

But—and my concern is I don't know if data can show that.

It—it's going to have to be hands-on investigations and—and evidence collection because the voting data when manipulated just shows us the—the manipulation.

I can't show when it happened if it happened, right?

Because we don't know when.

It could have happened when it was counted.

It could have happened as it's in transit.

And it would look the same to us, right? Yeah.

And so— And this is where the FBI and the Department of Justice should absolutely be stepping in to analyze. Yeah.

This is where the people who are getting paid to do these things should be stepping up and doing these analyses and doing these investigations and collecting these voting machines that in Clark County seem to be potentially manipulated and running these tests and feeding in over 600 ballots instead of—and this was the issue with the RLAs.

So hypothetically, if you were to have planned to do a vote flipping manipulation and win an election like this, you would need to take into account auditing and—and risk limiting assessments.

So how do you not get caught?

And it would make sense that a lot of these risk limiting assessments only do a—a small portion of the votes, like 2% or so. Yeah.

And so if—if you know that they're only going to do a certain amount, but you want enough of an impact, it makes sense then that you would have thresholds for when the actual hack takes over.

And then we're seeing, like, 400 votes counted for early voting.

We're seeing 600 as the next phase.

And that would make sense because if you had a handful of tabulators and you're only feeding in a couple hundred ballots across all of them, you wouldn't really trigger that change.

And so what they're testing in risk limiting audits, like in, I believe, Arizona, is you're just testing, does the machine say, "Hey, I just put in, you know, 400 ballots. Did it just count 400 ballots?"

And—and does it—is it the same on the ballot as it is in the tabulator?

That's all you're doing is you're just testing the equipment.

You're not actually testing if the original ballots themselves are different than the numbers projected, which would be where you would need hand recounts or you would need certified clean machines and you would run large amounts of the data and you would see by how much things are changing.

And that's what we should have had when, I mean, if you—if—if, you know, one of the candidates would have stepped up and said, "Hey, I want to recount in some of these states just to verify."

And that's—that's perfectly normal.

That's a part of our process is you're allowed your recounts. Right.

You pay for them if they're outside of a window.

But that's the point is that's not undemocratic to make sure there was no errors.

Like, why would you not do that?

Why would you not want to just make sure?

And let's—to—to bring this full circle, Nathan, that's why I stopped what you're saying right now is why I stopped the conversation about a month ago because I understood that was—that was the legal lever we had and—and the reasonable lever we had to just ask for legal help.

And our agencies—our agencies literally said, "Hey, our election's hard to hack because we have so many processes to verify and check."

But we're not using them. Where are those processes?

We're not using them.

Where are those hand—where are those ballot checkers? Right.

So we're not doing it.

And so—so to those who are saying too little, too late, if you can kind of just bring us full circle to where we started this conversation and—and explain why you were so insistent with me that you wanted to have this conversation before tomorrow. Yes.

Before January 6th. I have to. Before the vote is certified. And you know what?

To me, it's really kind of the same conversation when you tell me about the oath you took to protect and defend the Constitution. Yes.

And the whole thing about the 14th Now movement has been about protecting and defending the Constitution.

So can you just kind of bring that together and why you were so adamant that we get this out tonight? Yes.

And so, I mean, as we've talked about for the last few days is, you know, our Constitution lays out so many things.

And it specifically says with the 14th Amendment that, you know, you can't—you can't have a rebellion and then come back into office.

It's a clear issue, right?

If you—if you're, you know, not able to cede power peacefully and then you gain power again, how do you think that's going to go, right?

And so the issue I was having is people, when you take positions of office, when you take—when you commission as a military officer, when you assume, you know, these higher levels of office, your—in my opinion, your standards need to be high.

And they take an oath.

They swear an oath to the Constitution and to our country and to our people.

And I swore an oath to the Constitution.

I swore an oath to my state. I—I swore an oath to the people.

And the point being is how can you say—how can you stand up there and say that you're doing your job and you've—you uphold the Constitution and you uphold your—your oath if you're not willing to even question and—and verify and audit things that are so transparent to—to me and many—many people?

You know how many people have come up to me during these last few days and said, "Hey, are you that guy who talks about the—the data?"

And I was like, "Yeah. What's up?"

You know, "Hey, man, it just doesn't add up. There's a lot of issues that I see and so many irregularities."

And I'm like, "Oh, I—I—I believe you. I feel you. And I want to—I really want to get to the bottom of it."

And that's why we did the Election Truth Alliance.

That was the foundation is we wanted answers.

And here's the truth is we're doing the work for the data.

We're doing the work for the visual and the analysis.

It's been—it's been volunteer work.

It's been ridiculous amounts of hours, over 40 hours a week of just doing stuff.

And our thing is, let's say tomorrow that our congressman and our—our representatives and our—our president and our vice president doesn't step up to uphold their oaths like, you know, I'm doing right now because this—I'm—my career is on the line for this, you know?

I'm—I'm speaking out and this could be seen as a political speech or whatever, but it's not.

It's nonpartisan. It's data.

And the point being is, depending on how this—this goes, my—my military career is on the line for this.

And yet that is acceptable because I truly believe that this had an impact in the election based on what our theories are and—and the data we have.

And the point being is I took that oath and I cannot sit by and let this potentially happen without speaking out about it and without asking for—for answers and digging deeper.

And this isn't the My Pillow Button guy. We're not asking for violence.

We're not asking—I'm not standing up here and I'm not threatening and I'm not hateful.

It's been nothing but love and acceptance and appreciation from this movement.

And then we—we—we're here now because it—it feels like we're running out of time.

The window is short. We have one day before they say, "Hey, this was above board."

And then the 20th is when our democracy, you know, is potentially, you know, facing change.

Gone beyond repair. Yes. Absolutely. Absolutely.

And you're talking about the Constitution and the rule of law.

And all of these things are coming into play tomorrow.

This is—this is it. This is as we were—you know, if you were listening to our rally today on the—on the National Mall, yesterday on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, everything is literally on the line right here.

And we have a foreign government with—that our government has documented the interference.

There was documented interference with Iran and Russia.

I believe the Treasury Department sanctioned them. Sanctioned them.

And they said, "Hey, there's significant evidence to show that they were attempting to influence the election."

And I think the specifics on that were they had a server farm in the United States that was used to push social media agendas and propaganda.

And—and they found that and they, you know, they saw that the funds to—to run that operation was, I believe, coming from Russia.

And so is it such a stretch to think that a certain individual who has already shown his willingness to throw away the lives of the American people and use them as tools to keep his power, is it such a stretch to show that he would—he would go that extra mile knowing that he faces potential legal—like, his lawsuits are just—he has a ridiculous amount and they're very damning with the evidence and he could face serious consequences.

Yeah. Every incentive. There's no risk.

He's already—he's already facing the worst-case scenario.

Would it be such a stretch to suggest then knowing that he's going to potentially go away for a long time, that he needs to—to be in power, he needs to resume office because then he's got legal protections against people continuing those investigations?

And it—I mean, theoretically, it would make sense that that would be the—the cause and the agenda.

And—and so the questions then is, you know, how—how would you even have the means to do this, right?

The—the speculation on the level of coordination and effort to do this across the swing states, potentially elsewhere if the data suggests it, how would you even do this?

And as we—I said I don't even want to talk about 2020, but there are concerns about 2020 as well.

I don't even—I—I don't even have the full picture on—on the requirements, but I do know you would need a lot of—of wealth and power.

You would need a lot of support, foreign or—or internal or external.

I had highlighted previously a—an organization called Turning Point USA, which was, I believe. Conservative. A conservative. A religious group, I believe.

And—and it was specifically they wanted to have as many people volunteer to be engaged in the—at the—the election, the—the precinct and the voting polls. Right.

To be election workers. To be workers. Yeah.

And I mean, and if—as I said, if you were trying to plan a multi-pronged manipulation and you're trying to get rid of mail-in ballots and you're trying to, you know, manipulate the data and you're trying to disenfranchise voters by getting—by disenrolling them from their ability to vote and they show up to vote and now they have to vote absentee.

And the absentee process is horrible because people don't—many of those votes don't get counted.

Those absentee votes, they get—what's the word?

Pruned or purged or whatever.

They get—they go—they get spoiled and they don't get counted.

So you're just trying to stop as many people from accurately voting as possible.

And how can you—how can you sit there and say that you support and protect and defend the Constitution and you believe in the rule of law and you should be the most powerful person in the world if you don't even want to uphold election integrity and make sure everyone gets their right and their vote and their say?

That doesn't make sense to me. And so. Yeah.

And I—one thing I said to Nathan also in the car and the way over here is that if it is—if there is a multi-pronged effort at manipulation. It would be.

It's bound to reveal itself. Yes.

The problem is when that happens and if that happens, it's going to be too late.

There's—there's serious concerns about we—the people are seeing this issue. Yeah.

And so the agencies whose jobs are to monitor and do these analyses and do election security, they—they should have already known.

They should have already been seeing what we're seeing.

They should have already had access.

They should have already been hands-on and on-site and on the ground finding and doing these things.

And the concern then is if they are, why have they been quiet about it?

And, you know, maybe there's a game plan there that will come out here in a little bit.

But if—if there wasn't a game plan, my concern is why have they not done anything?

What are—who are—whose side are they on?

Are they on the side of democracy and the people or is there something else that's influencing them?

Well, they have tomorrow, like I have been saying all weekend, to—to write their legacy.

Their legacy, each and every one of those lawmakers and frankly Kamala Harris, who will be certifying the vote.

Anyone who is involved in the swearing-in of Donald J. Trump will have their legacy on the line and tied to him if they reject the Constitution in favor of an adjudicated insurrectionist.

You know, I met tonight in person for the first time one of my dear friends who was a Capitol Police officer who was there on January 6th and a January 6th witness.

And I got—I've—I've talked to him many times on Lights On.

I know what he's been through, but to see him in person.

Very impactful. And to see how this is impacting him and affecting him.

It's—it's—there's so many people who January 6th was a day of terror really is.

And it is amazing that it seems like people are wanting to forget or they just don't—they're not holding on to the horror.

It was like watching that in real time.

It was amazing to see how our democracy could be at risk because of—of, you know, a few people who should never have been able to—to execute that attack. Yeah.

And just to correct, you know, what Amy Klobuchar was saying at the top of this video. Yes.

And we'll close it up is, you know, the line they're using is, "We are committed to a peaceful transfer of power." Yeah.

They said specifically with—with us talking about the 14th Amendment is we've proven that a certain candidate is an insurrectionist.

They voted last four years ago.

They voted about this. Right.

And the thing is, their only other argument was, "Well, the American people support him.

So we—we kind of have to do this."

Well, the data suggests that he does not have the support of the American people, that the support of the American people is in someone else.

And I believe, you know, it's their duty to do their job. Yeah.

But anyway, what I was saying about the peaceful transfer of power is that is a total straw man argument to the extent that any Democrat or any lawmaker uses that excuse tomorrow to not uphold the Constitution, to in one breath say, "We are upholding the rule of law and the Constitution and the peaceful transfer of power," and then in their—in their action defy the Constitution and support a man who violated the peaceful transfer of power. It's clear. It's clear.

It's written out for you to read. 14th Amendment. It's 100% clear.

So with all of these things in view, with all of these questions, one last thing I want to share with you all before I leave you tonight is that someone came up earlier to us today—to us at the—at the rally and said, "You've given us a safe place. You've made us feel like we're not alone, like we're not crazy to be able to have this conversation and we can—we can air these—these thoughts freely and safely."

And I hope that we have done that tonight.

I have, as I've said multiple times, not transitioned off of this topic because I don't believe it's worth having, but simply because I thought that the legal mechanism that we had was more in the 14th Amendment space.

But I'm very grateful to Nathan tonight for joining me.

I understand what a—what a chance he's taking by doing this.

And it shouldn't be a chance because you're doing it out of your allegiance to the Constitution.

It shouldn't be at all. So I want to thank everybody for joining us tonight.

I want to urge everyone to still please stay on the 14th Now movement until that vote happens tomorrow.

Leave messages tonight. Leave messages in the morning. Call them.

Hound them respectfully, but respectfully hound them incessantly.

Go to nowmarch.org and go to the Jan 3rd Day of Action, but it's really until—until it's over, Day of Action. Yes.

Go to the Day of Action page. Call your representatives.

There's a Resist bot in the description of the video from the rally today.

Please check out those rallies.

We had some incredible—incredible speakers yet today, yesterday, and Friday.

Among them, Craig Sicknick, the brother of Brian Sicknick, who was—who died in the line of duty because of the actions of Donald J. Trump.

So much is on the line tomorrow.

We have a constitutional and a legal backstop to stop the death of democracy on our watch.

We damn well better do it.

So thank you, everybody, so much for joining us.

And keep those lights on always. Let your light shine.

And please do me a favor, subscribe to the Jessica Denison YouTube channel and share this because apparently we're some of the few people actually doing this work.

Dire Talks on YouTube as well. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. Have a great night.

© 2026. ElectionFraud2026.Com - All rights reserved.

Home - Blog - Solutions