President Trump Should Direct FBI and DOJ to Offer Nonpartisan Cash Rewards, Leniency, Immunity, for Election Fraud Tips and Leads; Election Fraud Should Be Investigated Like Other Federal Crimes, Such as Terrorism, Yet Investigations Must Also Be Expedited

Election fraud should be treated like other federal crimes, such as terrorism, with nonpartisan cash rewards for usable tips and leads, as well as offers of leniency or immunity for informants coming forward to cooperte with authorities.

That is especially the case in 2020, where overall numbers are so unrealistic and implausible. What would have been record-breaking success by an incumbent is alleged to have been surpassed by hyperinflated numbers by a challenger so cartoonish as to have required a voter turnout equal to 98% of the total number of voters from just two years ago.

It may well be that such a nonpartisan investigative effort, with rewards, might also result in some would-be tips or leads that are not usable or useful, and perhaps even some false allegations, whether against the Trump team, Biden team, or the organization of some alternative minor candidate. Yet a heightened flow of information is necessary, and professional investigators can conduct proper assessments to weigh and filter resulting inputs.

Even a cursory recollection of past FBI cases reveals how painstaking and diligent an investigative process can become, and how the truth-finding process, or case-proving process, might need to rely upon even obscure details that provide a "break in the case."

In one case of a terrorist assassin who shot people in front of CIA headquarters, the reward for information reportedly climbed to $3.5 million, and it still took four years to apprehend the assassin in Pakistan. The final arrest reportedly was, indeed, facilitated by a tip from an informant.

U.S. presidential elections and their consequences, including control of a nuclear arsenal, obviously are always of enormous magnitude. Yet in 2020 the stakes seem even higher, and myriad claims of irregularities have already surfaced.

Yet, as with rigged elections in foreign countries known to have election fraud, overarching numbers are, themselves, implausible. In 2016, Donald Trump got around 63 million votes while Hillary Rodham Clinton got about 66 million votes. In 2020, Trump excelled, with roughly 72 million votes, more than any candidate prior to 2020. So the only way to claim that challenger Biden prevailed, and had enough of a buffer to "pooh-pooh" the effects of any fraud, was with an almost cartoonish, hyperinflated allegation of Biden getting 77 million votes. The problem is, by pushing Biden ahead of Trump, and adding in alternative candidates, the allegation implies that voter turnout was 98% of the total number of registered from two years ago in 2018.

Given the short timeframes involved, and the fact that a potential "winner" already reportedly is pushing for his "victory" to be taken as a given, any investigation must be robust and highly expedited, with "no stones unturned."

How would rewards and offers of leniency be handled?

There might be cash payments, or the equivalent, to witnesses who saw, or have first-hand knowledge, or heard from family members or others, about specific acts, plans, meetings, communications or other activities relating to election fraud or plans for the same.

For hypothetical perpetrators reporting on their "colleagues," i.e., co-conspirators, there could be promises of leniency, or even full-fledged immunity, whether absolute immunity or immunity from any prosecution based upon, or derived from, the information provided. At the same time, informants should be rewarded for being the first to cooperate. To some extent, they also should be rewarded even if they are simply the second, or third to cooperte, or cooperate at all, at any point, if it means preventing an illegal government from taking power via an illegal process.

Where things get interesting would be with offers of leniency for other related, or completed unrelated, crimes.

For example, hypothetically if a looter, or a terrorist "protestor" who threw a firebomb against a federal building, later stuffs a ballot box, perhaps informing on the entire operation relating to the ballot-box stuffing should justify reducing or suspending their sentence for the looting or other offenses.

Consider a hyothetical hacker, perhaps with a guilty conscience and a gaming addiction, who comes forward with information about hacking election systems, or with information that he gained from hacking into information exchanged among election fraud perpetrators. Perhaps the hacker could receive immunity for turning in "bigger fish." Or perhaps he also could be given leniency for other hacking prosecutions he already is "on the hook" for.

The possibilities are endless.

The need to reward informants and to investigate accurately, thoroughly and expedititiously is heightened infinitely by the nature of a national election. The financial and power-related stakes are so high, that any hypothetical election fraud undoubtedly would upon real or imagined incentives about real, or imagined, gain and "payback" for the participants in such a scheme.

Time is of the essence.

Key Words: Election, Joe Biden, Donald Trump, Politics, 2020 Election, Election Fraud, Voters

White House