Election fraud and the Democrats’ suspicious conduct
By: Andrea Widburg
Scott Adams has evolved a simple measurement to determine whether the Democrats used fraud to push Biden ahead in the election: Were Democrat vote counters acting as if they were committing election fraud? The answer to that question is “yes.” When you combine that with the law’s acceptance that people’s suspicious conduct is useful evidence to prove that they committed a crime, you’ve got one more legal cudgel against the Democrats.
American criminal law has long recognized suspicious conduct as one link in the chain bringing a criminal to justice. Thus, law officers have the right to act if they reasonably believe someone is behaving suspiciously.
For example, in United States v. Trullo, 809 F.2d 108, 112 (1st Cir. 1987), a case involving cocaine distribution, it was not error to defer to a police officer’s conclusion that the defendant was acting suspiciously when he had a chat with a third party who got into the car, the two drove to a deserted street, and then, after a short chat, the third party got out of the car and walked right back to his starting point. If it looks like a drug deal, that’s sufficient on-the-ground evidence to arrest someone.
The law tracks well with common sense. You don’t need to have extraordinary sensibility or experience to recognize that when someone is desperately hiding an activity, he’s either planning a surprise party for you or he’s engaged in conduct that’s illegal or embarrassing – and I think we can rule out a surprise party at the vote-counting headquarters in the contested states.
Scott Adams has taken note of the correlation between suspicious behavior and criminal activity. In one of his videos, he made the point that, when bullying poll workers in Democrat precincts chase out Republican witnesses, those poll workers have essentially admitted that they are cheating. Someone took that video footage and spliced it with footage of the behavior Adams was describing. The resulting video is short and powerful:
We can apply this Scott Adams principle to situations other than those in which poll workers physically barred election observers. For example, the principle applies to Georgia vote counters dishonestly saying that they were shutting down vote counting for the evening, only to resume counting after the observers left the building.
Once the observers left in reliance upon this fraudulent representation (which is itself guilty conduct indicative of cheating), the real counting began.
And what counting it was! Someone at Gateway Pundit with sharp eyes caught one campaign worker repeatedly feeding the same ballots into a computer counter:
It was surely no coincidence that, by the time Fulton County’s secretive, highly suspicious counting stopped, Biden had benefited from a mathematically impossible spike!
Of course, if you want truly suspicious behavior, there’s the fact that, in every state that pushed Biden over the top (Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Georgia, and Nevada), the counting stopped abruptly when Trump was ahead by enormous margins. Before last month, stopping the vote count had never happened before in America.
However, stopping vote counts is common in corrupt nations so that the incumbent can have time to generate enough ballots to ensure an incumbent victory. And indeed, in Detroit, 130,000 ballots suddenly arrived while the counting was paused.
Scott Adams is right. Along with all the evidence about faked ballots, statistical anomalies, dead voters, felons voting, illegal aliens voting, computer cheating, etc., you need to add highly suspicious human behavior to your evidentiary list proving massive fraud in the 2020 election. The whole thing can be summed up this way: If a poll worker walks like he’s cheating, and talks like he’s cheating, is a good bet that he’s cheating – and all of his fellow poll workers are too.