Ingenious master criminal Frank Abagnale, whose exploits were portrayed in the 2002 film Catch Me If You Can, was ultimately released early from prison under the condition he help the government apprehend criminals. Ex-Illinois governor and Democrat Rod Blagojevich had no conditions attached to the commutation of his sentence, which was for corruption. But now he’s also trying to help catch criminals — vote fraudsters, to be precise — and he has some advice for President Trump and his legal team.
For one thing, he counsels that Trump not use public opinion to attack the courts, but to let the massive evidence speak for itself.
Blagojevich believes the recent election was crooked and admitted on TV earlier this month that vote fraud is a “time-honored” Democrat tradition. Some dismiss this citing his criminal past, but ignored is that there’s no shortage of non-felon Democrats who’ve made the same admission.
For example, ex-president Jimmy Carter co-chaired a 2005 commission that warned, as studies have shown, that mail-in balloting facilitates vote fraud. Former TV host Chris Matthews said on his erstwhile show Hardball years ago, I believe in reference to Philadelphia vote fraud, that (I’m paraphrasing) “everyone knows it’s been going on for years.”
{modulepos inner_text_ad}
NYC election commissioner Alan Schulkin was caught on hidden video in 2016 admitting, “I think there’s a lot of vote fraud” as he talked about how fraudsters are bussed from precinct to precinct (he was opposed to it, do note). One of the bussing orchestrators, Scott Foval, was also captured on video boasting that we’ve “been bussing people in to deal with you f*cking a*sholes [referring to Republicans] for 50 years, and we’re not going to stop now.”
Then there was the “top Democrat operative” who spoke to the New York Post this summer; he described the mechanics of mail-in vote fraud and admitted that he and his team have been perpetrating it for decades.
The point is, it’s hard to imagine that very many connected individuals — politicians, in particular — don’t know there’s rampant vote fraud. Their risible claims to the contrary are for public consumption.
As for Blagojevich, who has come clean, he made his comments in a recent Newsmax interview. Appearing with Leo Terrell, a former liberal whose leftist zeal yielded to Trump’s appeal, Blago explained why we may not yet be seeing the “biblical”-magnitude evidence that has been promised. He said, as BPR transcribes it:
It would be wrong I think for them to be fighting this case exclusively in the court of public opinion. And they have to be very sensitive to the courts and respectful to the court process…. If they show their cards too soon, the corporate media that’s in a conspiracy to destroy President Trump and destroy his presidency — they’re trying to ratify what is in my belief, a corrupt election, they’re going to be all over the place trying to take away the arguments that Trump’s people have…. So it would be imprudent, I think, for the Trump legal team to do too much of this publicly.
“The problem with this is that battles may have to be fought over state legislatures regarding the certification of electors,” adds American Thinker’s Thomas Lifson, rendering analysis. “But President Trump has conspicuously not been agitating against the courts, so maybe Blago has spoken privately with him and convinced him.”
Blago also discussed what Trump’s team should do. Relates BPR:
President Trump has a constitutional duty to make sure there is election integrity in our voting systems. And the evidence is overwhelming. I should say, the allegations of the wrongdoing is [sic] overwhelming….
In places like Pennsylvania, in Michigan, in the big cities where Democrats control everything. Having been a Democratic governor and congressman from Chicago, I know how they operate. The evidence will be there. They’re going to find it, because of the statistical anomalies in the case as well as the unlikelihood, the improbability, that you can be ahead by 800,000 votes in Pennsylvania, or a little less than that, with 63 percent of the vote in, and then somehow you lose? Those things are all valid allegations that are being put out there….
There will be hurdles the Trump campaign will have to overcome. He’s inevitably, and not [un]expectedly, gonna lose at the local levels in those states where Democrats control everything, when you have Obama-appointed judges. The path for President Trump is that he has to navigate through those thickets and get his case before the United States Supreme Court. That’s where he will prevail on the constitutional issues, equal protection, and due process. [Video below]
What concerns me isn’t the evidence, which appears staggering, as the 20 points outlined here attest. What concerns me is man’s nature.
If people have a strong enough emotional vested interest in convincing themselves 2+2=5, they will generally do so because human rationalization knows few if any bounds. Insofar as the election goes, even some well-meaning people may fear opening up that can of worms, emptying the dark closet and revealing the demons within for all to see.
Moreover, any judge overturning this election knows and will have to accept that he’ll become a pariah — subject to threats, personal danger, and guaranteed reputational destruction — for the rest of his life.
It is easier, emotionally, to simply rationalize, “Hey, we don’t want to create a constitutional crisis now, do we?” Of course, with a major election stolen and what is essentially a coup having been effected, there already is a constitutional crisis. Remedying it would be very, very messy. But messier still is the consequence of not doing so: a dead republic.
So do we have five of nine justices on the SCOTUS with hearts of lions? Because that’s what it will take.
