Fraud & the Democrats’ Suspicious Conduct

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.

(If you want a comprehensive database of all the evidence supporting fraud in the election, I recommend both Every Legal Vote and Here Is The Evidence.)

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.


The above article (Election fraud and the Democrats’ suspicious conduct) was created and published by American Thinker and is republished here under “Fair Use” (see the TLB disclaimer below) with attribution to the articles original author Andrea Widburg and

TLB recommends you visit American Thinker for more great articles and information.

More great Articles & Blog Posts by Andrea Widburg



Stay tuned to …


The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)


Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.


Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.


Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.