The Best Way to Catch a Thief Is To Think Like a Thief (Part I)

What has been clear regarding the Trump legal team’s approach to exposing voter fraud in the 2020 election they have forgotten the fundamental principle in catching a thief is to think like a thief.

The first order of business is not to prosecute the crime; but rather, to expose the crime.

In Pennsylvania (Philadelphia), Georgia (Atlanta), and Michigan (Union)—where Donald Trump’s sizeable leads all evaporated in the wee hours of the morning—Trump’s legal team should ask law enforcement type inquiries not pursue clever prosecutorial avenues.

Determine if and what type of crime was committed.

To this effect, stop with the dialog regarding signature verification.

In Philadelphia, Atlanta, and Union counties evaluate the circumstances.

Donald Trump was leading by substantial numbers.

The time constraint to flip the election to Joe Biden was extremely tight.

How were the thieves able to successfully commit the crime of flipping the election with so little time? (Read: Georgia’s Early Morning Rip-Off Could be Key in Unraveling Election Fraud)

What the criminals needed were ballots and nothing more.

In fact, mail-in ballots with their double envelopes would have encumbered the thieves’ efforts. The perpetrators would have had to open two envelopes to get to the only item they needed—the inner ballot.

This would have taken considerable time—time the thieves didn’t have.

It should be pointed out: The more people who know about a crime the less likely that crime will remain secret. Therefore, adding personnel merely to open mail-in ballots flies in the face of what should be expected in the perpetration of the wee morning hour thievery. (Read: Prisoner’s Dilemma: Will Ultimately Expose Voter Fraud)

Again, we get back to the time constraint: In order to commit their larceny, the co-conspirators had to act with haste—and with limited participation.

It is important to note: The criminal actions committed in the wee hours in Philadelphia, Atlanta and Union counties were not committed during the general election—but rather in an extremely narrow window immediately after the general election.

Did voter fraud occur during the general election—absolutely.

However, the Trump legal team’s perspective should not be on all voter fraud—just enough of the voter fraud that will flip the election back to the legitimate winner. President Trump can pursue the broader fraud after he is sworn in for a second term.

(Note: All voter fraud that took place in the 2020 election should be pursued, as it may change the outcomes in numerous other non-Presidential races at the state and federal levels.)

Furthermore, the co-conspirators had ample time to cover their tracks during the general election, making it appear as though no crime had been committed, therefore, making it harder to prove malfeasance. (Read: Are the Foxes Guarding the Hen House)

The wee morning hour fraud presents a very different scenario.

In this situation, the co-conspirators had to scramble. They were pressed for time—making them prone to mistakes.

The elegant, low hanging fruit, approach to exposing voter fraud would be to focus on the wee morning hour criminal activity in Philadelphia, Atlanta, and Union counties.

It is worth repeating: What the co-conspirators needed in Philadelphia, Atlanta and Union counties were ballots they could immediately run through ballot readers.

But they had another constraint—ironically, those ballots had to be in the form of mail-in ballots. County processing centers are not generally used for in-person voting, therefore, the ballots processed at the county level are from mail-in ballots, which are sent directly to the county—not to a precinct.

This dichotomy represents an opportunity.

The wee morning hour crime required expediency—which means the conspirators needed direct access to ballots, but the utilization of the county required a paper-trail.

Those ballots processed at the county level had to have been requested.

Were they requested?

Is there a record of the requests?

Are there associated inner envelopes? (Read: Understanding the Mail-in Ballot Process)

This line of pursuit has nothing to do with signatures.

It is whether in their rush to fix the election, did the co-conspirators make mistakes?

Did they cover their tracks?

The answer: They likely took shortcuts.

Will the shortcuts expose their crime?

The key element in flipping the election back to the rightful candidate is in exposing the crime—not prosecuting the crime.

The best way to do that is to think like a thief.