爆料TV

In April 2025, the Election Truth Alliance was Nevada nonprofit with a growing audience in anti-Trump online spaces and a claim that something about the 2024 presidential election did not add up.

The group had released an analysis of the results in Pennsylvania and sent letters to officials there and in Wisconsin asking them to hand-check the results of multiple elections. Now, it wanted to work with Walter Mebane Jr., a tenured University of Michigan political scientist and one of the few academics who had spent decades trying to detect the statistical fingerprints of election fraud.

Mebane was skeptical.

鈥淭he name of the group didn鈥檛 really inspire confidence,鈥� he told . 鈥淚 was thinking, 鈥極h my god, truthers.鈥欌�� But Mebane thought the data would be useful for his students and a book he was working on, and by early May, he had produced a working paper analyzing Pennsylvania鈥檚 2024 presidential results. In a note, he credited the ETA for providing the data.

His findings estimated the number of potentially fraudulent votes exceeded President Donald Trump鈥檚 margin of victory in Pennsylvania. In the working paper, Mebane noted his findings could also be attributed to factors other than intentional fraud.

The ETA has described 惭别产补苍别鈥檚 work as a 鈥渃ollaboration鈥� that confirmed its conclusions. Mebane described it differently: He said he had no interest in the group鈥檚 advocacy and engaged because he believed it had unique data on Pennsylvania. He told Votebeat he did not know the same data was available from the state.

鈥淗e is kind of the go-to guy for election forensics in the U.S. He鈥檚 the leading expert,鈥� ETA co-founder Nathan Taylor said posted in May 2025 announcing the findings validated their Pennsylvania concerns. Toward the end of the video, a QR code to the group鈥檚 donation page flashed on screen. The ETA urged supporters to contact Pennsylvania officials and advocate for hand-count audits, and they heeded the call, sending state and local officials emails that cited 惭别产补苍别鈥檚 work to allege the results were flawed.

In a June 2025 press release, the ETA said 惭别产补苍别鈥檚 findings . 鈥淏REAKING,鈥� the group wrote. 鈥淓lection Forensics Expert Finds Vote Manipulation Concerns in Pennsylvania.

In November, the ETA filed a lawsuit against the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and three counties questioning the 2024 count and to require the counties to 鈥渉and count physical ballots.鈥� The group cited its own analysis but relied on 惭别产补苍别鈥檚 findings to suggest abnormalities in Allegheny County.

The ETA鈥檚 leaders acknowledge that statistical analysis alone can鈥檛 prove fraud. But they say the anomalies they raise warrant independent validation of the election results.

The Pennsylvania paper Mebane gave the ETA did not fully explain the statistical model he used to identify potentially fraudulent votes, which he calls 鈥渆forensics.鈥� Mebane later told Votebeat he had 鈥渄ecided not to write it in a way that would make it self contained鈥� and instead referred the ETA to his past work for details on his methodology.

The ETA鈥檚 promotion of 惭别产补苍别鈥檚 original working paper and his credentials caught the attention of a network of statisticians and political scientists accustomed to dense models, technical assumptions, and arguments over what statistical analysis of election data can really show.

Justin Grimmer, a Stanford political scientist whose 2021 peer-reviewed paper debunked statistical fraud claims about the 2020 election, said 惭别产补苍别鈥檚 work has been used by the ETA in ways that give unusual weight to its claims about elections, which could otherwise be more easily dismissed as fringe. The result, he added, is a 鈥減erfect storm鈥� 鈥� a motivated interest group armed with a professor鈥檚 academic credentials.

He said giving the original analysis to the ETA was like 鈥渉anding someone a stick of dynamite and being surprised when you walk away and it detonates.鈥�

As the ETA鈥檚 profile rose and its supporters trumpeted 惭别产补苍别鈥檚 findings, Votebeat consulted 10 election and statistics experts about his original Pennsylvania working paper and the statistical model Mebane terms 鈥渆forensics.鈥� All said they doubt the model can accurately detect fraud in U.S. elections.

A different kind of election denial

Claims of election fraud and statistical anomalies are now a regular feature of American elections 鈥� often blending data, analysis by citizen researchers, and the raw emotions of voters who do not want to believe their candidate truly lost. After 2020, when Trump and his allies waged an unprecedented effort to overturn the results, such efforts became closely associated with the political right.

The ETA, which was formed as a nonpartisan nonprofit, has tried to distinguish itself from those movements. 鈥淭his is not election denial. This is election integrity and auditing,鈥� the ETA鈥檚 Taylor told David Pakman, host of the progressive online program 鈥淭he David Pakman Show,鈥� which has more than 3.6 million YouTube subscribers. Pakman described the 2025 segment as 鈥渙ne of the most requested interviews鈥� in months.

惭别产补苍别鈥檚 work has fueled public questions about elections before: , politicians and activists cited his analysis to allege possible election fraud in 2020. Political scientists later found and damaged voter confidence.

Now, the ETA is using his work to raise questions about election results in the U.S. In addition to Pennsylvania, the group posted a summary of an unpublished analysis by Mebane of 2024 results in North Carolina, and it has asserted that the fact that his analysis corroborated its findings in Pennsylvania validates its analyses of other states.

鈥淚n collaboration with ETA, Dr. Walter Mebane analyzed Pennsylvania vote data for the 2024 November Election and found evidence of potential election fraud, confirming ETA鈥檚 analysis of the same Pennsylvania vote data,鈥� an attorney for the ETA wrote , threatening litigation if the state refused to act.

鈥淐onsistent with techniques used to analyze Pennsylvania鈥檚 vote data,鈥� the ETA said it had identified 鈥渆vidence consistent with vote manipulation, including ballot-stuffing, deleting votes, and using algorithms to alter tabulator vote counts鈥� in some California counties.

ETA leaders later told Votebeat the group鈥檚 lawyer鈥檚 use of 鈥渃onfirming鈥� in the letter was 鈥渓ess nuanced鈥� than their own statements, but that they stood by their use of 鈥渃orroborates,鈥� since, they said, both analyses reached similar conclusions.

The ETA has also sent letters to officials in at least six states, including Minnesota, Michigan and Kentucky, suggesting it has found abnormalities in the 2024 election results or in subsequent ones.

The letters urge election officials to take steps, such as investigating technology used in the elections and conducting hand counts, to verify the results. As of Sept. 2, Pennsylvania is so far the only state where the ETA has sued. A judge the case but left the door open for it to be refiled. When the group in August, it made no mention of Mebane or his analysis. In an interview with Votebeat in April, Taylor said the ETA planned to file suit in Florida next.

The nonprofit is run by three people who came together on Reddit after the 2024 election, none of whom have an apparent background in U.S. elections. Taylor, 27, has a background in information technology; his two co-founders are a U.K.-trained financial professional now living in Arizona and a Canadian policy analyst with experience coordinating resources for British Columbia鈥檚 election authority.

The group raises money to support its work, including through donations and selling merchandise such as a 鈥淭he Math Ain鈥檛 Math鈥檔鈥� T-shirt and a women鈥檚 sleep shirt reading 鈥淰ote Once, Count Twice, Sleep Tight.鈥� it reported raising more than $422,000 in 2025.

While Mebane said he worked with the group, he told Votebeat that he hasn鈥檛 spoken with its founders in months. He told Votebeat that he saw 鈥渕any, many things鈥� in the ETA鈥檚 explanations that he 鈥渄idn鈥檛 think were sound interpretations鈥� of his work. But he said he didn鈥檛 want to get into a public debate with them, nor would he detail his specific concerns to Votebeat. He said fact-checking online claims is a distraction from his primary professional focus, a long-gestating book on his eforensics work.

Mebane stands by his model as valid but also said he does not see it as his responsibility to ensure the public understands his work. He stressed that his work has been done transparently and in public through working papers that can be revised.

At the same time, he dismisses the criticism from other academics, saying the experts consulted by Votebeat lack key components he has 鈥渄eliberately not shown.鈥� and University of Pennsylvania political scientist produced written reviews of 惭别产补苍别鈥檚 2024 Pennsylvania working paper at Votebeat鈥檚 request. Mebane described Grimmer鈥檚 critique as 鈥渏ust wrong鈥� because 鈥渢hese views that you鈥檝e solicited here are not based on the whole case that I鈥檓 making.鈥� In response to questions, he frequently cited his planned book, saying the answers will ultimately be found there.

From butterfly ballots to eforensics

Mebane described his childhood as that of an inquisitive Black boy coming of age in the Civil Rights Era South, in a household where his parents, both Tuskegee graduates, emphasized the importance of social justice.

鈥淭hat鈥檚 why I cared about elections,鈥� Mebane, 67, said in an April interview on the University of Michigan鈥檚 Ann Arbor campus. It seemed to him to be 鈥渢he one way that wasn鈥檛 violent鈥� that could 鈥渃hange who has control of some levers of how decisions get made.鈥�

When he spoke with Votebeat, he sat in a sparsely furnished office at the university鈥檚 Institute for Social Research 鈥� a space he uses for meetings. He described his primary workspace as 鈥済rimy鈥� and packed with books. He wore a faded T-shirt featuring a tarot-style image labeled 鈥淭he Wanderer,鈥� a symbol of a lone traveler.

Mebane said he has always been drawn to questions about human behavior. At 8, while grocery shopping with his mother, he remembers searching the cereal aisle for hidden cameras, convinced companies must be tracking what people bought to measure the effectiveness of advertisements.

, who earned his undergraduate degree at Harvard and his doctorate at Yale, was teaching government at Cornell and studying elections in 2000 when the presidential race became too close to call, plunging the country into uncertainty.

as part of a team of academic experts working pro bono on a lawsuit challenging Palm Beach County鈥檚 butterfly ballot, a confusing two-page design that led some voters to accidentally select the wrong presidential candidate. His team in the American Political Science Review.

That work was straightforward: Mebane and his colleagues started with a known irregularity 鈥� the butterfly ballots 鈥� and worked outward, estimating how many votes it may have affected. There was a specific, identifiable problem. His job was to measure it.

His approach to Pennsylvania鈥檚 2024 election works differently.

In the eforensics framework, Mebane starts not with a known problem but with the election results themselves. He compares total votes, votes for the leading candidate, and the number of eligible voters or registrants. Using those inputs, the model looks for patterns Mebane says could be produced by fraud.

Elections are shaped by a wide range of forces, from socioeconomic conditions and demographic differences to weather, campaign spending, and the quirks of individual races. 惭别产补苍别鈥檚 Pennsylvania model does not directly account for those factors, though it does adjust for broad differences in turnout and voting patterns across counties. Instead, using precinct-level vote returns, it classifies precincts as having no fraud, incremental fraud, or extreme fraud 鈥� terms Mebane says are not meant to imply intentional wrongdoing.

Critics say that is where the trouble begins. The model flags innocent variations 鈥� caused by anything from strong canvassing efforts to hurricanes 鈥� as readily as deliberate manipulation.

Mebane recognizes that the model can be affected by other factors. He says his model is unable to account for 鈥渓ost votes鈥� 鈥� votes that were never cast because voters stayed home, for example. The model also sometimes flags strategic behavior 鈥� such as a voter intentionally casting their ballot for a party they don鈥檛 typically vote for 鈥� in the same way as fraud. Critics say such phenomena are commonplace in American elections, making the model a bad fit for the U.S.

鈥淢y project is a scientific mission to see whether this estimator and this approach can measure election frauds,鈥� Mebane told Votebeat. 鈥淚 think it measures frauds in a valid way, but it鈥檚 imperfect.鈥�

Experts dispute findings and raise questions about false positives

Michael Alvarez, a political science professor at the California Institute of Technology, tested 惭别产补苍别鈥檚 model with Grimmer and Meredith using simulated data built to contain no fraud. The model still found fraud at levels similar to 惭别产补苍别鈥檚 Pennsylvania working paper.

Grimmer and Meredith said this kind of simulation is a basic way to pressure-test any model. They, along with Alvarez, were surprised Mebane had not done it.

In 惭别产补苍别鈥檚 book manuscript, a partial copy of which he provided to Votebeat, he said he has not used simulated data tests because his preferred test is to compare the model鈥檚 results with real elections. He points to examples from France and Mexico, where courts or election authorities later annulled results or otherwise identified serious problems, and his model also found anomalies.

Had Mebane pressure-tested the model with simulated data, Meredith, Grimmer, and Alvarez said, he would have seen that the model could flag fraud even when none existed.

鈥湶驯鸩�补苍别鈥檚 eforensics model labels precincts as fraudulent when they show just a combination of this disproportionately high turnout and support for the winning candidate,鈥� Meredith said at a recent academic conference. That combination was in precincts that favored Trump.

Mebane responded that such a result was 鈥渘o surprise,鈥� because an election simulated to contain no intentional fraud may still effectively simulate high mobilization or strategic behavior 鈥� forces his model may flag as eforensics frauds.

All three criticized 惭别产补苍别鈥檚 use of the word 鈥渇raud,鈥� with Meredith calling it 鈥渧ery irresponsible鈥� and 鈥渇rankly, not defensible.鈥�

In his book manuscript, Mebane defines fraud as 鈥渕alevolent distortions of electors鈥� intentions that change or potentially can change election outcomes,鈥� even if the distortions aren鈥檛 the result of malicious or improper activity. Pressed on his use of the word 鈥渇raud,鈥� Mebane defended it.

鈥淚 have an imperfect measure of fraud.鈥�

If the anomalies may not be due to fraud, why use the term at all?

鈥淏ecause it鈥檚 eforensics frauds.鈥�

Why not call it an anomaly instead?

鈥淏ecause it measures frauds.鈥�

Alvarez, who co-edited a on election fraud, took issue with 惭别产补苍别鈥檚 definition. 鈥淣o one else thinks that鈥檚 what the word fraud means,鈥� he said.

惭别产补苍别鈥檚 eforensics model has not been published in a peer-reviewed paper. He submitted an early version of his eforensics work to the American Political Science Review in 2020. It was rejected, and he said he does not recall the specific critique.

Nevertheless, in a press release announcing 惭别产补苍别鈥檚 findings, the ETA said the model 鈥渉as been validated in professional scientific publications.鈥� The group did not specify which publications. Many political scientists, who reviewed the model at Votebeat鈥檚 request, told Votebeat that it cannot be used to support the claims the ETA is making.

Pennsylvania, a swing state that has long been the subject of voter fraud conspiracy theories, draws intense scrutiny in every election. In 2024, the state had a appointed by the losing party, bipartisan boards in nearly every county, , and smaller .

Meredith questions whether thousands of manufactured or stolen votes could really have slipped through all that scrutiny.

鈥淚 am concerned that the model uses fraud as the mechanism to make the model fit the data better,鈥� Meredith .

In Pennsylvania in 2024, Republican registrants turned out at higher rates than Democratic registrants in nearly every county, a pattern Meredith said is more readily explained by partisan enthusiasm than ballot stuffing.

惭别产补苍别鈥檚 working paper acknowledges this possibility, albeit seven pages in. After repeatedly asserting that his findings of fraud may exceed the 2024 margin in Pennsylvania, that the state is a 鈥渒ey battleground into which extensive and intensive campaigning and mobilization efforts were directed,鈥� adding, 鈥渕aybe most or almost all of the incremental manufactured votes are false positives prompted by electors鈥� strategic behaviors.鈥�

The most conservative version of his model puts the number of estimated illegitimate votes well below Trump鈥檚 margin of victory in Pennsylvania.

In the version of the working paper provided to the ETA, Mebane described the narrower estimate as 鈥渁 not negligible proportion鈥� of Trump鈥檚 margin. Mebane has since updated that paper for his book and deleted that language, according to a revised version he provided to Votebeat in July.

Mebane also provided Votebeat with to the reviews of his model from his academic peers, which highlight this limitation. In that, he says that when both malevolent distortions and strategic behaviors happen in the same election, 鈥渘othing about the model per se鈥� can distinguish between the two.

Experts were also critical of a number of choices Mebane made in his analysis. The working paper, for example, skips steps typically standard for claims of this magnitude. It does not rigorously engage with alternative explanations, address the fact that Pennsylvania鈥檚 election results were audited, or show through simulation that the model can return a no-fraud result in a setting like Pennsylvania鈥檚.

The Pennsylvania analysis also relies on data Mebane obtained via the ETA, even though that data was also publicly available from the state. Mebane said he did not check the data with election officials before publishing his findings, something Grimmer characterizes as a basic precaution before drawing conclusions from any model.

Grimmer and the other experts said taking that step would have helped Mebane understand and account for obvious data issues that instead distorted his findings. Votebeat separately found additional data interpretation errors in 惭别产补苍别鈥檚 work. After Votebeat raised its discovery with Mebane, he acknowledged it and revised his findings of precincts labeled as 鈥渆xtreme frauds.鈥�

惭别产补苍别鈥檚 also changes which counties he identifies as having significant levels of 鈥渕alevolent distortions.鈥� His original paper focused on Philadelphia and Huntingdon. The revised version provided to Votebeat instead focuses on Philadelphia and Bradford.

The new paper does not explain the change, and the earlier version 鈥� accusing Huntingdon of having high levels of fraud 鈥� remains on 惭别产补苍别鈥檚 website.

鈥楾here is an element of faith鈥�

The ETA stressed in an email to Votebeat that its claims do not rely solely on 惭别产补苍别鈥檚 working paper or model, noting that it ran multiple statistical tests 鈥渢o avoid putting too much weight on any one individual method.鈥� But some of those other tests are variations on the same basic idea as 惭别产补苍别鈥檚 eforensics model.

For instance, in Pennsylvania, the group used a method developed by a Russian physicist that treats precincts with both high turnout and high support for the leading candidate as potentially fraudulent 鈥� a pattern colloquially known as a 鈥淩ussian tail.鈥� Grimmer said that kind of approach runs into the same barrier as 惭别产补苍别鈥檚 model: The pattern it flags may be real, but the model cannot say why it exists.

A political methodologist and researcher at Stanford University鈥檚 Hoover Institution, , told Votebeat that he spoke with the ETA last year and warned the group its methods could produce false positives.

The ETA鈥檚 founders also spoke with Votebeat and answered additional questions, but they did not answer a final list of questions about their methods, claims, and organization. They also did not directly respond to Grimmer and Meredith鈥檚 written critiques of 惭别产补苍别鈥檚 work.

鈥淥ur team remains open to transparent, unbiased data analysis, including amending and correcting errors when they are discovered or brought to our attention,鈥� they said in an email. 鈥淲e welcome and encourage constructive criticism of our methodologies or our characterization of others鈥� work as we seek to ensure the accuracy and integrity of election results, and to bridge the gap between academia and the general public.鈥�

But by both sides鈥� accounts, the group and the professor are no longer working together, with Mebane voicing doubts about how the group is using his work. The ETA said it repeatedly reached out to Mebane to ask if it had accurately characterized his work or should adjust its framing of it but received no response.

The ETA鈥檚 founders 鈥� Taylor, Emily Barner, and Clive Griffiths 鈥� said they are not the full extent of the ETA鈥檚 team, describing a wider network that includes members with in relevant fields, but declined to name most of them.

Barner, who goes by Lilli McGregor in her work for the ETA 鈥� which she told Votebeat is a combination of a nickname and her married name 鈥� said the group is trying to protect those members from reprisal and that supporters will ultimately have to take them at their word.

鈥淭here is an element of faith,鈥� she said.

At least one of the founders has expressed strong views about the 2024 election. Griffiths 鈥� who goes by the nickname Jive online 鈥� said on X before the election that it was 鈥�.鈥� The day after the election, he posted that 鈥渨e are gonna prove鈥� Trump cheated. After Votebeat asked about the posts, the account became private.

Mebane confirmed he also analyzed North Carolina data given to him by the group, which published a that claims he found more than 200,000 potentially fraudulent votes. However, Mebane said he asked the ETA not to publish his full paper, leaving that summary the only public account of his findings.

Mebane said he raised his objections explicitly in 鈥渁 couple of Zoom meetings.鈥� The group disputes that, saying it only learned of his concerns secondhand, around the time of an reporting that he did not endorse their claims.

The group has also contacted other academics, including Kalinin, who was advised by Mebane as a University of Michigan doctoral student. Before graduating in 2017, Kalinin on election forensics methods. Kalinin said the ETA first contacted him over the summer of 2025 and later scheduled a roughly three-hour call in October.

Over the course of the call, Kalinin said, it became clear the group was seeking advice on how to restore its relationship with Mebane following his comments to The Atlantic. He told the ETA members on the call they鈥檇 have to reach out to Mebane directly. It was in that conversation, he said, that he cautioned them about false positives.

鈥淭hese are just anomalies, these are not election fraud,鈥� he said he told them, stressing that 鈥測ou need to prove it.鈥� Without ruling out alternative explanations, he said, such patterns cannot establish wrongdoing, particularly in democratic elections where normal political behavior can produce similar signals.

Mebane told Votebeat he doesn鈥檛 have time to argue with everyone on the internet, pointing to . But his reluctance to publicly address the use of his work has left a vacuum.

For example, with more than 650,000 views titled 鈥淵es, There鈥檚 Evidence Trump Hacked the 2024 Election,鈥� independent journalist Scott Carney cited the ETA鈥檚 interpretation of 惭别产补苍别鈥檚 working paper as evidence the election may have been stolen. He acknowledged he could not fully understand the math and said Mebane didn鈥檛 answer his emailed questions.

鈥淐鈥檓on, Mebane!鈥� he said. 鈥淵ou can鈥檛 just drop a bombshell like that and then walk away like nothing happened.鈥�

The accountability gap

As the ETA used 惭别产补苍别鈥檚 working paper for advocacy and fundraising, it reached Andrew Gelman, a professor of statistics and political science at Columbia University and a leading authority on statistical methods. It had already baffled another technically sophisticated reader, who sent it to Gelman hoping he could make sense of it.

Gelman read both the Pennsylvania working paper and the underlying eforensics methodology but found the work too opaque to fully evaluate. The only reason anyone was engaging with it, , was 惭别产补苍别鈥檚 reputation. 鈥淲ithout his name attached to them I don鈥檛 think we鈥檇 be reading them at all.鈥�

That combination of technical opacity and academic authority is what makes work like this hard to dislodge once it spreads, said Grimmer. Debunking work like 惭别产补苍别鈥檚 requires readers to follow complex assumptions and unfamiliar methods.

Kalinin, who has spent much of his career studying elections in authoritarian countries, defended 惭别产补苍别鈥檚 caveats, calling the original Pennsylvania working paper 鈥渂alanced.鈥� At the same time, he said, methods like eforensics work 鈥渨ell on autocracies. I鈥檓 not so sure about democracies.鈥�

Kalinin said that he has come to believe the ETA was pursuing its own political goals and using the work of academics 鈥渁s the instrument鈥� to achieve them.

鈥淣o amount of academic caution can entirely prevent a motivated organization from stripping away those caveats to advance a specific agenda,鈥� Kalinin said in an email. 鈥淓TA is entirely responsible for its own actions. They are clearly exploiting election forensics research for strategic or political gain -- something that I cautioned them against during our private conversation.鈥�

鈥淚t does not surprise me that ETA may have mischaracterized my work, because that鈥檚 what I initially observed them doing to others鈥� work,鈥� Mebane said in an email. 鈥淚 take responsibility for what I say, not for what they or anyone else may say.鈥�

Other researchers Votebeat spoke with agreed that the ETA had stripped away important caveats. But they were less willing to separate the ETA鈥檚 use of the work from 惭别产补苍别鈥檚 own choices 鈥� including the claims he published, the authority his name carried, and his decision to remain largely silent as those claims spread. Academia offers few clear mechanisms for addressing those concerns.

Keith Whittington, a Yale Law School professor who studies academic freedom, said universities are reluctant to police what professors research or say because ideas once dismissed can later prove correct. What responsibility any individual scholar has over how their work is used, he said, is 鈥渘ot at all obvious.鈥�

Ivan Oransky, co-founder of Retraction Watch 鈥� a news organization that reports on academic corrections and retractions 鈥� said the issue is not whether preliminary or unconventional work can have value. It can, he said. But scholarship is supposed to be iterative, he said: Researchers should revise work in response to criticism and publicize those revisions. 惭别产补苍别鈥檚 website does not indicate whether or how his Pennsylvania analysis has changed in response to the criticism it has received.

Without subjecting your work to that process, Oransky said, 鈥淚鈥檓 not sure you鈥檙e really doing scholarship.鈥�

What makes this different from the dozens of other statistical analyses of the 2020 or 2024 elections he鈥檚 reviewed and found flawed, Grimmer said, is who it鈥檚 coming from. Claims like these usually come from the political fringe. It is far rarer to see them come from a tenured professor at a major university.

That distinction carries weight, especially in a political climate already primed for suspicion.

鈥淵ou can see how something like this takes off,鈥� Grimmer said. People tend to put too much stock in credentials when doing so supports their position, and 鈥渨hen they don鈥檛 understand, people default to the conclusion they want to reach.鈥�

was produced by and reviewed and distributed by 爆料TV.