This is part 5 so yes there are 4 earlier parts so if you read this you will feel like you're missing stuff you are.
Not endorsing the conclusion since I don't have access to the data they do but the premise is Harris not only didn't lose the election, she won quite easily. That the votes were distributed in the swing states and texas by "algorithm not voters" and that's why he won. for example in Arizona, Trump "overperformed" by 9.6% compared to downballot, harris underperformed by 5.91 %. That's called dropoff and it's typically 1-2 percent either way. the Arizona numbers are staggeringly high, but they're also high in EVERY single swing state.
The actual subject is the Rockland case which has no impact on the overall election but just calls out if they can get that case proven, that Larouche candidate Sare "lost" at least 44% of her votes and probably more, then they would take the next step. if it happened there it could have happened in lots of states with votes for Harris.
I read them out of order if you can figure out how to get them in order(I don't subscribe so I had problems doing that) probably helps.
Now look at 2024. See how the data shows a consistent overperformance for Trump, matched by an underperformance for Harris—across the board in every single county?
That’s not organic. And it’s not human behavior. It’s an algorithm—and it appears uniformly across the swing states and Texas.
According to the Election Truth Alliance data, Arizona reflects a minimum of 118,620 anomalous votes; Michigan, 65,263; North Carolina, 206,981; Pennsylvania, 225,440; and Wisconsin, 20,436.
**None of these totals account for the hundreds of thousands of voters whose ballots have gone “missing.”
And don’t forget: in both North Carolina and Pennsylvania, Dr. Walter Mebane—the gold standard in election forensics—reviewed the data and confirmed the findings.