Fortunately, many alternative conservative websites have done a heroic job in delivering evidence to demonstrate that the November 3 election results were based on fraud. Nonetheless, conservatives should also work to hypothesize what the Democrats plotted, how they executed their plots, and why their scheme failed to cover its tracks. In a recent roundtable with other conservatives following the story, including a Maricopa County election attorney (Rachel Alexander), we put together the most plausible scenarios.
Right now the only thing propelling the fraud case forward is the mass of people who have seen the facts and conclude that the fraud took place. They need to respond strategically when the left wing presents their “Bingo board” of denials:
Most of these are deflections, but they can be effective if conservatives find themselves lost in multiple streams of evidence (fake ballots, fake registrations, Dominion, jump drives, poll watchers). The most obvious denial tactic of the left is to ask for evidence without defining that they consider evidence, or what standard they mean (for example, preponderance or compelling, etc.) They also stagger conservatives by dismissing one set of proofs (for example, dead people voting) as unrelated to another set of proofs (Dominion hackers), thereby making conservatives look scatterbrained.
Below is the most plausible theory we could come up with, to explain how Democrats accomplished the fraud, based on the available evidence. I have come to suspect that multiple conspiracies played out, possibly unaware of each other. But given the evidence we have obtained, the following hypothesis seems most likely.
What Was Their Plan? Imagine This
A relatively small team of perhaps 50 people or fewer was led by a smaller cadre which probably included several lawyers and most definitely included tech experts. The smaller cadre formed some time around the impeachment and carefully recruited point people over the course of the following months. Working like terror cells, they would need to keep point people unaware of who else was in on the conspiracy, to protect plausible deniability as much as possible. They had to have at least one conspirator in the elections offices of key swing states. It wouldn’t need to be a high-profile elected official, and would no doubt be better if it were some nameless person that few people noticed or would suspect.
By February they would have had substantial information about the voting software vulnerabilities, since Democrats, including Elizabeth Warren, had publicly aired concerns about tabulation companies such as Dominion previously. After Russiagate and the impeachment, there was no doubt a team of dedicated individuals who had developed key contacts among academia, journalists, and the intelligence community. This was important because it would have allowed them to gather data in order to put forward their plan.
Their plan depended first and foremost on electronic data. They needed to do reconnaissance to figure out which swing states would pose a problem and where in those swing states they would have sympathetic point people who could help them gain access to servers. As Philippine congressman Glen Chong explained to Michelle Malkin an interview, Filipino elections were rigged by using jump drives with preloaded ballot images.
In his Arizona testimony, Col. Waldron explained that when a ballot is processed through a tabulator, the machine takes an image of the ballot. Affidavits tied to Sidney Powell’s lawsuits affirm Glen Chong’s explanation: the data from a tabulation machine can be overridden or replaced either through a remote connection to the internet or through a simple USB jump drive.
The plan, I believe, was to obtain and store large numbers of fake ballot images on jump drives first, with an intent to download them onto the tabulation drives in key districts. They could have spent months amassing and scanning these from real paper or they could reproduce them en masse digitally.
The fraudsters’ number one goal would be to manipulate the data communications sent to media on election night so that widely read media would report a lot of votes for Biden to the public. They would know at some point during the day how many of the fake ballot images they needed to inject into the tabulator machines. I believe that they planned to erase one real ballot image for every fake ballot image in order to keep the number of votes from being too discrepant.
While they could do this by hacking from another site, and probably did do that in some cases, the ideal data transfer would be from a jump drive directly into a machine. The jump drive would probably leave less of a trace than traffic over the internet.
The fraudsters would have probably figured out how all the data gets communicated from individual districts to a central data bank and then out to the media. The first priority would be to push out public numbers showing Biden in the lead, so the figures would stick in people’s heads. They could then go back and figure out how many of the fake images they needed to replace real ballot figures with.
From the beginning they would have known that they needed a massive paper conspiracy to complement the digital conspiracy. The chances of audits or recounts were high. Canvassers would have to be thrown off at a minimum. They would have to make the tape on the tabulators match the data sent out to the media “scoreboard” as well as the stacks of paper and the voter rolls. This is not as hard as it sounds. At the beginning of the tabulation process, to protect a secret ballot, the identifying documents are separated from the actual ballots. As long as they had a certain number of fake ballots printed, they would only need to swap in a certain number of fake ballots from the de-identified pile, and remove and destroy an equal number from the real pile.
If they can make the swap before election workers scan the ballots, so much the better. If not, no problem—they only need to wait until the coast is clear and replace the real ballots with fake ballots on the digital file, then in the stack of scanned paper ballots headed to canvassing and storage. If they pre-scanned and pre-loaded the fake ballots, they can do this without too much risk of error, just as long as they keep count of how many ballots are in each batch they swap.
If this hypothesis reflects what the schemers actually intended, then on election night, they had two simple challenges with regards to the paper. They would have to bring in their batches of fake ballots and keep track of which machines they were going to be fed into, so that they would match the fake digital images. Second, they would have to find a way to throw out and destroy thousands of real ballots that had been replaced by the fake ones.
I believe that it is in the management of the paper swap that this group’s plan went awry.
How the Scheme Went Wrong
There is good news here. While it’s outrageous that they carried out a heist this big, they did get caught. The fact that their plan was discovered so quickly and elaborately exposed reveals a lot about what the plot entailed and where its critical weakness was.
The paper ballots were the first place where things would go awry. A scheme this dangerous could not take the risk of including too many people in the conspiracy, so the vast majority of ballot counters, and all the poll watchers, would have to be kept ignorant. Because of this, large stacks of fake ballots would be difficult to sneak in. They got caught on this detail. In the Michigan testimony, one woman was able to spot suspicious ballots with sequential serial numbers and even managed to write down the names on these suspicious ballots. In other states witnesses reported seeing strange ballots that lacked normal creases or seemed to have been mass printed.
The paper ballot swap obviously could not be done remotely, so the conspirators would have to find a way to get the pseudo-ballots in on election night. Remember, their ideal scenario would be to swap them in that critical window between the separation of ballots from their identification documents and the scanning of ballots through tabulators. The shocking security cam footage in Georgia shows that they probably succeeded in the ideal swap in Atlanta. After the expulsion of the poll watchers, four to six people appear to pull ballots in cases out from under tables, with nobody watching. If these were freshly printed fake ballots, they could be scanned to replace real ballots in an override of the digital data.
I believe most of the plotters in the other districts were unable to pull off the ideal paper swap. My suspicion is that there were too few people in their conspiracy and they did not expect the number of poll watchers and volunteers. Deprived of the ability to swap the ballots at the ideal time, they had to follow a contingency plan of letting the real ballots get scanned, then overriding the digital data in the tabulation machines with their fake data from a jump drive. The danger here is that the paper ballots would clash with the images on the drive. To carry off the steal, they would have to swap the paper ballots afterwards, routing stacks of scanned real ballots to a trash site somewhere and replacing them with fresh stacks of their fake ballots.
It is not necessarily that difficult to do the post-scanning swap, if conspirators have enough pre-printed fake ballots ready to make the swap. The boxes of tabulated real votes sent to storage would need to be intercepted and carefully matched in quantity before the canvassers came, typically in the days following. The lag time between election night and recounts in Georgia and Wisconsin gave colluders in both states ample time to visit various ballot storage facilities in the select counties, and make the swap. In Georgia, however, they faced the problem of how to make the real ballots disappear. That may explain the video footage of a shredding company hauling documents out of a Georgia facility.
On election night in Michigan things turned dire and eyewitnesses refer to several dumps of large numbers of ballots from suspicious origins. Some recount a dump of ballots a little after four in the morning. The IT whistleblower said she saw people scanning batches of fifty multiple times through tabulation machines, hours before the ballot dump. All this leads me to believe that in Michigan they did not have enough pre-printed fake ballots to make the swap on election night and had to rush to retrieve them from repositories all over Detroit or elsewhere. I suspect as well that in Michigan they may have also not had enough pre-loaded digital images of ballots, which would explain why they were obsessively scanning batches multiple times.
Everything in Michigan indicates that something went wrong and they scrambled. It was obviously very risky to bring in large numbers of ballots in the wee hours of the morning. Even more dangerous was telling innocent poll workers to scan batches multiple times in front of IT helpers. They may have tried a trick of purposefully planting errors in the stacks of ballots so that machines would jam and innocent counters would run the same stack through again without discarding the count of what they already scanned. This would explain one woman’s testimony about a man who seemed to place a kind of white tape in the tabulation machines to make it malfunction. I do not believe the people operating the machines knew about the larger conspiracy. It was so perilous to trick them into doing multiple scans, it seems they must have been desperate to get more images stored in the data files.
The testimony from Ms. Jacobs in Michigan reveals that at least one person, Ms. Jacobs, was pushing back against questionable actions involving the rolls and signature checks. My guess is that in Detroit they had to contend with people who were not in on the scheme, and who would have noticed boxes of pre-printed fake ballots moving around the facility. That may explain why in Michigan there was so much clumsy traffic in ballots on the night of the election, which led to the Detroit operation getting exposed.
Lawmakers in Michigan challenged the IT whistleblower by asking why, if there were multiple scans taking place, the tallies at the end of the night did not show a large number of unexplained ballots. But of course this was the beauty of the conspiracy as I have conceptualized it. If they scanned, for example, 30,000 fake ballots so their data would register on the drive, they could delete the data for 30,000 real ballots. Then they just had to get into storage, remove 30,000 real ballots, and replace them with 30,000 fake ballots.
The testimony in the Michigan hearings attested to the fact that over 70% of the ballots were legally barred from being recounted. The Wayne County commissioner who wanted to de-certify the election attested to the fact that the boxes were faulty and she only received a verbal executive summary, nothing put in writing. This is why Ms. Palmer did not want to certify the Wayne County tallies but caved to pressure.
The testimony from the Pennsylvania truck drive likewise points to a meltdown in the conspiracy over the paper ballots. The fact that they were using shady means of trafficking large numbers of ballots just before the election supports the hypothesis provided here. If they tried to do this with a small number of conspirators, it makes sense that they would be unable to avoid people noticing strange happenstances.
The Damage Control
The fact that I am writing about this shows that this was not the perfect crime. The conspiracy was exposed though the conspirators have yet to be caught. My hunch is that it was a small group of colluders who tried to dupe many innocent people. A small size would explain why there are so many eyewitnesses who reported the signs of conspiracy, but we have yet to hear from a whistleblower who admits to being part of the plot.
To judges, reporters, and lawmakers, it is easy to dismiss stories of fraud because they ask themselves, how could such a massive collusion take place without somebody at some point confessing under all the pressure? Citizens are much savvier to this, possibly because the plot was so mundane, anybody working in a middle-management job or at a lower level can recognize both the pettiness of it and the obvious reactions by people who got caught.
The beauty of the small size of conspiracy is that many people who carried this plot had no idea the steal was happening around them. The problem is that the low headcount meant certain key tasks, such as the Pennsylvania ballot shipping, the Georgia paper shredding, and the Michigan mass-scanning at tabulators, had to rely upon people who were not part of the plot. Perhaps the colluders thought these entry-level workers would be too naïve to notice anything.
The Watergate drama gives us a peek into what a Biden presidency will look like. The break-in at the Watergate Hotel did not change a single vote. The idea of cheating in any way to win an election repulsed enough of the American public that voters disqualified Nixon from serving and he resigned. Winning the White House led to Nixon losing everything. To govern a country that is slowly winning trials and convicting people of stealing the presidency for you—that is misery and abjection. Biden faces a steep and slippery future, especially if he gets inaugurated next month. The scale of the fraud leaves open the possibility of thousands, perhaps millions of plaintiffs in incalculable civil and criminal cases. As these cases work their way slowly through the courts, freed from the rush of meeting stop-Biden deadlines, extensive evidence will be presented and courts will hear long and compelling testimony. All the while, Biden will have to carry on while millions across America know that somebody stole the White House for him.