Trump’s Legal Team—What’s Their Game Plan (Part II)

In Part I of “Trump Legal Team—What’s Their Game Plan” the focus was understanding what hurdles face President Trump’s post-election day legal team.

In this article, we tackle what strategies and tactics the post-election day legal team will likely employ to expose potential voter fraud in the 2020 election.

It is worth restating: The election day legal team’s focus was on prevention—the post-election day legal team’s concentration is on exposure.

These are two separate and distinct objectives that present very different challenges.

To this point: All legal action taken by the President’s people as of November 18th were dismissed by the courts as having insufficient evidence. The election day legal team simply didn’t provide the necessary evidence to prevent voter fraud.

The post-election world presents a whole different reality.

As stated above, the emphasis of this article is to discuss the nuts and bolts of how President Trump’s post-election legal team will likely go about their task of proving voter fraud.

The challenge for the reader, voter fraud is not one-size fits all.

Added to the confusion are actions taken by State election officials—such as mandatory recounts, which are not part the primary focus of voter fraud.

Could these State driven actions lead to the discovery of voter fraud—possibly. However, these actions are largely meant to correct any obvious clerical errors.

More important, the first actions taken by States are machine recounts not necessarily hand-counts.

Still, major discrepancies in State driven machine recounts could lead to targeted hand-counts and thus exposure of voter fraud without the need of any actions taken by the Trump post-election legal team.

As for the Trump post-election legal team, their focus will be on two aspects of the 2020 election—mail-in ballots and voting machines.

Even discussing voting machines is not cut and dry.

There are the voting machines themselves such as those manufactured by Dominion and then there is the associated operating system software which was provided by Smartmatic.

Dominion voting machines have already been identified as those responsible for so-called glitches which caused wholesale flipping of Trump votes to Biden or Republican votes to Democratic candidates.

These glitches likely will not be the focus of the Trump legal team—and should be caught by State audits.

What is likely going to be of greater emphasis by the post-election legal team is what attorney Sidney Powell has referred to as millions of votes stolen from Donald Trump by sophisticated software (Smartmatic) embedded in voting machines used in the 2020 election.

Ms. Powell’s assertion is a direct reflection of analysis done by Dr. Shive Ayyadurai, on three large Red counties in Michigan.

Oddly, according to the post-election data, precinct with higher percentages of Republicans saw President Trump’s percentage of the Republican vote go down, creating a downward regression line, which Dr. Ayyadurai postulated could have only been the result of sophisticated software.

By his estimates, in just three counties, Oakland, Macomb and Kent, 67,000 votes were taken away from President Trump and switched to his opponent, Joe Biden—resulting in a net difference of 138,000 votes.

In an article published in Townhall (Nov. 16th), by Beth Baumann, Sidney Powell claims the Trump team has sworn witness testimony that details out the deployment in other countries of the same type of sophisticated software Dr. Ayyadurai had speculated was likely responsible for the voting anomalies in Michigan.

In order to substantiate Dr. Ayyadurai and their witness’ assertions, the Trump’s post-election legal team will have to compare hard copies (physical paper ballots) with the machine counts reported in counties they believe were affected by Smartmatic software.

What to do in a paperless precinct?

Substantiating the claim of software interference becomes harder to verify if no paper (hard copy) ballots were used—i.e. touch screen voting.

While more difficult—even without hard copies the presence of malicious software can still be proven.

By using the sign-in sheets and likely voter profile based on Party affiliation, the counties could re-input data into the paperless systems—then verify whether the output matches the input.

This would be a labor intensive effort and therefore costly—but if it has been proven in other precincts where paper ballots confirm the presence of malicious software—that evidence can be used to compel counties to expend the necessary resources.

If it is proven malicious software is present and adversely affected the voting process—it is a simple matter of using the percentages based on input versus output to get the appropriate correction ratio.

If the hand count results in a deviation from the machine reported counts, the hand count would then replace the machine count.

Again, if the assertions of malicious software are proven true, the evidence gathered in one county could then be used across the nation. (Read: Chaos Theory Suggests What Happened in One State Happened in Others)

It is clear by the November 19th press conference, held by members of President Trump’s post-election legal team, the person leading the voting machine (Dominion), operating system software (Smartmatic) portion of the voter fraud efforts is attorney Sidney Powell.

What stood out in Ms. Powell’s remarks was the fact there are multiple aspects to the software/machine storyline.

There is the system software (Smartmatic), the machines (Dominion) and perhaps more disturbing the reported training, by Dominion personnel, on how to use machine options to manipulate ballot counts at the polling sites.

It was clear from the press conference the post-election team will be using a mixture of affidavits from a range of sources including individuals with a knowledge of the software (Smartmatic) as well as those with eye-witness accounts of voting machines (Dominion) being used to manipulate votes.

It should be made clear: The Trump post-election legal team is a private entity.

Even though what they are seeking to expose is a criminal endeavor, they do not have criminal jurisdiction.

Still, Trump’s legal team has recourse through the courts to expose the widespread voter fraud they claim took place in 2020.

Perhaps more telling from the press conference—this is just the beginning.

We will end this article at this point and pick up the mail-in ballot aspect of the Trump post-election legal team efforts led by Rudy Guiliani in Part III.

Leave a Reply