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

In “Trump Legal Team—What’s Their Game Plan (Part II)” we began the process of breaking down the likely actions the Trump post-election legal team would take to expose voter fraud in the 2020 election.

In Part III, we conclude the three-part series by looking at the mail-in ballot efforts.

In the November 19th press conference, it was clear potential fraud driven by mail-in/absentee ballots would be a priority of the Trump post-election legal team’s efforts and will be driven by Rudy Guiliani.

It is worth noting, Mr. Guiliani presented the case before the Pennsylvania courts to remove some nearly 700,000 mail-in ballots from the Philadelphia area before they could be added to the official vote tally. His attempts were unsuccessful; however, the efforts to remove a large portion of the Philadelphia mail-in vote is ongoing.

As with the voter fraud aspect due to machine/software being pursued by attorney Sidney Powell, the area being addressed by Rudy Guiliani has multiple elements. (See: Part II)

There is the Trump post-election legal team’s efforts in Wisconsin.

It should be noted: The efforts in Wisconsin are not typical of what will likely be the approach rolled out by the legal team across the nation, however, there is commonality in the form of volumesee below.

The Trump legal team has paid for a hand recount in two Blue counties (Milwaukee, and Dane), based on a unique statute in the Badger State’s election laws making it illegal to solicit a vote.

The practical implication—absentee ballots must be requested by the voter. According to Mr. Guiliani, his team has numerous sworn affidavits stating this law was violated in Milwaukee and Dane to the tune of nearly 100,000 times.

Wisconsin Absentee—What’s Going On?

What the Trump post-election legal team is challenging, whether the Voter identified with a particular absentee ballot actually requested that ballot.

The Trump team is seeking to compare county records (requests) with actual ballots cast in the counties of Milwaukee and Dane.

If no such request is found for a particular absentee ballot, by Wisconsin election law, that ballot must be thrown out.

Given the margin of Joe Biden’s lead in Wisconsin (~ 21,000 votes), if Mr. Guiliani’s claims hold true, President Trump would carry the Badger State by nearly 80,000 with just the votes removed in Milwaukee and Dane—assuming the 100,000 absentee ballots went for Mr. Biden.

It is worth repeating, the Trump legal team’s approach in Wisconsin is not typical of what should be expected nationwide.

Furthermore, there may be more vote harvesting that took place across the Badger State as well as voter fraud driven by machine/software manipulation—so the 100,000 votes in Milwaukee and Dane may just be the tip of the iceberg in Wisconsin.

What will be the typical strategy/tactic associated with mail-in ballot fraud?

The Trump mail-in ballot team strategy will be based on volume.

It should be pointed out, uncovering mail-in ballot fraud is not about exposing all fraud; but rather, enough fraud to flip the election back to President Trump.

In effect, it’s a numbers game.

Furthermore, there are only so many people that can be thrown at this issue as well as limited time, therefore the Trump legal team must be as efficient as possible.

(Note: Volume will drive the Trump legal team’s efforts, however, it does not mean the issue of criminal voter fraud committed during the 2020 election cannot or will not be pursued beyond the final election results. If President Trump, as his legal team believe, wins in a landslide—it’s likely Mr. Trump will make the 2020 voter fraud a point of emphasis in his second term.)

Philadelphia is a case in point of volume.

Donald Trump was leading in Pennsylvania on the order of 700,000 plus votes only to see his lead evaporate in the wee-hours of the morning due to mail-in ballots generated in Philadelphia.

The dilemma: How is it possible to create this level of volume?

There are two distinct factors in successfully creating the levels of volume needed to throw the election in Pennsylvania—secrecy and control. (Read: Successful Ballot Harvesting Requires Economies of Scale)

It does no good if the voter fraud scheme is exposed, therefore, secrecy is paramount.

Second, in order to achieve the desired outcome—i.e. a vote for Joe Biden—the conspirators cannot leave the ballots to anyone but themselves—in effect they must complete each ballot to ensure they get the desired outcome.

Given the constraints there must be a level of efficiency.

But efficiency comes with a priceit leaves a paper trail.

The requested ballots cannot be delivered to hundreds of thousands of different addresses. Not only is this impractical, it could potentially expose the conspirator’s scheme. Therefore, there must be a limited number of mailing sites—clearing houses.

This is the inherent weakness in any large-scale ballot harvesting scheme—the need to create clearing houses, where the ballots can be collected and filled out.

This inherent weakness is how the Trump legal team will expose large portions of the mail-in voter fraud.

By finding the high-volume clearing houses, the Trump team can identify every mail-in ballot sent to those addresses and then petition the courts to have all of them thrown out. (Read: The Paper Trail Created by Mail-in Ballots)

In Michigan, the Trump team can look up county records to determine where mail-in ballots were sent to the nearly 10,000 dead Michiganders Richard Baris, director of Big Data Poll, discovered—then back track how many other ballots were sent to that same locations. (Read: Follow the Dead)

In Philadelphia, the matter should be even easier due to the sheer size of mail-in ballot vote.

The Trump team merely has to search county records for high-volume addresses—then identify which voter ballots were sent back to the county.

In Nevada, where county officials sent out mail-in ballots to every registered voter in the state, the Trump legal team may choose to petition the court on the basic principle of “chain of control.”

Because Nevada election officials did not control the mail-in ballot process, President Trump’s legal team can demand Nevada election officials prove each ballot received is legal before they can be added to the vote tally.

Regardless of the State or circumstances, one thing is certain: The strategy followed by  the Trump post-election legal team that is focused on mail-in ballot fraud will be predicated on volume.

Leave a Reply