Subscribe to the Blunt Force Truth podcast

Election fraud and the Democrats’ suspicious conduct

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.

Read the full story from American Thinker

Want more BFT? Leave us a voicemail on our page or follow us on Twitter @BFT_Podcast and Facebook @BluntForceTruthPodcast. We want to hear from you! There’s no better place to get the #BluntForceTruth.