January 24, 2021 America Can We Talk?
24 JAN (UPDATED) KEEP AN EYE ON PATRICK BYRNE’S CHRONICLE OF HOW TRUMP LOST HIS PRESIDENCY
Mark ‘deepcapture.com‘, and follow along as Patrick Byrne documents in the coming days/weeks a multi-part story of his involvement in analyzing the 2020 election results.
Byrne is a tremendously interesting character, but not an easy target for character assassination or the cancel culture. He’s straight up libertarian; kind of a math genius; has an undergraduate degree from Dartmouth, a master’s degree from Cambridge University in the UK, and a Ph.D. in philosophy from Stanford; was personally mentored early in life by Warren Buffett; reportedly has been very successful in business; and never was and isn’t now a personal fan of Donald Trump. An iconoclast of sorts.
Yet his in-depth involvement in support of the FBI and DOJ in relation to the financial collapse of 2008-2009 (and his public opposition to naked short-selling in 2005) led him to ‘engagements’, experiences and perspectives on the so-called Deep State that few Americans have. He’s very believable, in other words. And has a very likable and engaging demeanor.
So follow along as he releases his account of November 3rd and its aftermath, which includes, among other things, a 4.5 hour meeting with President Trump on December 23, 2020.
UPDATE: January 26, 2021 – Byrne’s second installment is here.
From Byrne’s second installment:
…there are those who will say coyly, “But how do you know that cheating occurred?” We don’t, fully: what we know is that five cities play a special role in US political science because of their ability to flip five key swing states; those five cities saw bizarre and unprecedented activity on voting night, up to and including the shutting down of vote counting (the water pipes knew just which cities to break in); in each case a huge spike of Biden votes were injected where counting had ceased and observers had been cut out…. Personally, I think it was brazen enough it is an insult to our intelligence to ask us to believe it, but in my view the test is not, “Is there enough sketchy information to be absolutely sure that enough fraud went on it changed the election result?” No, the test is, “Does this smell enough like skunk that we should just open up the boxes with all the paper ballot backups, and recount the whole thing on livestreamed TV? After all, there is a reason the machines were sold to us as always having the paper ballots as a fail-safe: it seems to me that if there were ever a time to use it, now would be that time.” Say it’s a judgement call, but in my view any reasonable person who looks at that preceding constellation of facts will say, “That looks enough like mischief that we need to dig deeper.” And any who look at the preceding constellation of facts and says, “Nope, I don’t spot anything there demanding further examination” is gas-lighting.
Patrick Byrne’s observations are very consistent with our own: