Sunday, November 29, 2020

MULTIPLE UPDATES: Sunday Morning: FBI Taking Action?

Thanks to commenter EZ for bringing Matt Braynard's tweets to my attention, as I've been out of pocket as usual. As EZ remarks in his comment, it definitely appears that the FBI is getting involved, based on clear indications of fraud. This may be a salutary caution to those who assume that because they don't receive regular text/email updates from AG Barr that no action is under way. At the same time Braynard takes a cautious approach--the request he documents here is not a guarantee of effective action. Nevertheless, for the time being it's a positive step:

Matt Braynard



- The @FBI  has proactively and directly requested from me the VIP findings that indicates illegal ballots. 

- By Tuesday, we will have delivered to the agency all of our data, including names, addresses, phone numbers, etc.

- While there has been legit criticism of the actions of leaders of the agency over the last several years, I can personally attest to the many patriots within the rank-and-file who are fighting on the side of the Constitution and Law and Order.

Note: everything I pass on to local/state/fed law enforcement, litigants, legislatures, journalists, etc, is always a copy. 

And despite sharing it with individuals from all of those groups, there's never guarantee of a productive result.

UPDATE: OK, so what does this mean?

First, context. We know that within a few days of the election two things happened at DoJ/FBI. 

First, AG Barr's Deputy AG--to whom Director Wray answers on a day to day basis--issued a policy clarification that stated that FBI agents are allowed to carry firearms inside election centers. That was a clear indication that the FBI had received complaints about election fraud or violations of federal election laws and was attempting to respond. That response might have been to simply seek further information to determine whether a federal violation was in play, but the fact that there was an early FBI response to complaints is the important point.

Second, shortly thereafter AG Barr took action that forced the head of the Election Fraud Branch at DoJ to "resign". The situation was that this official, Richard Pilger (linked to past Dem scandals), had clearly been obstructing DoJ/FBI response to the election related complaints that were coming in. Once again, this was a clear indication of action being taken.

The significance of this action is almost certainly that Pilger had been seeking to block investigations that local FBI and US Attorney offices wanted to set in motion. Pilger, through his guidelines, was in a position to block requests to obtain subpoenas. Barr's prompt action allowed the local USA/FBI offices to take the action they deemed appropriate and necessary based on their own knowledge, without having to clear their actions through Pilger.

In addition to those early indicators, we know that there have been criminal referrals to the FBI from private parties. Certainly this occurred in Clark County, Nevada, but I believe it has taken place in other jurisdictions, as well.

With that context in mind, here's my best guess.

My best guess is that the FBI, in consultation with local US Attorneys and, most likely, DoJ, has made the determination that there is a basis for believing that criminal violations of election laws have occurred and that a Full Investigation is warranted. That determination was most likely made some time ago. Exactly what violations are being looked at is a matter for speculation, but the request for Braynard's best information tells us what some of those violations are.

My belief regarding why the request was made to Braynard is fairly simple. Braynard, with his past expertise in election data gathering, was able to quickly amass an enormous amount of relevant data--including identifying data for numerous witnesses and indications of whether those witnesses would likely be cooperative. The FBI would naturally want to contact relevant witnesses to the violations they were investigating so, rather than reinvent the wheel, they decided in the interests of time saving, to obtain Braynard's information. The next step is to set out leads to all FBI offices to contact witnesses in their jurisdictions. Investigative work can't be confined simply to the contested states, since witnesses may have moved, literally, anywhere in the world.

The other factor here is important to keep in mind. We know about these developments because the FBI has been in touch with private parties. It's entirely possible, even likely, that the FBI has also received information from other government entities--local, state, federal. In most cases we would not be aware of that, so we can only speculate. Where this will all lead is also a matter for speculation. One thing is for sure--no matter how much Braynard and others have accomplished (and it is hugely impressive), the FBI and DoJ totally dwarf private investigators in investigative capabilities.

For what it's worth, let me point out that Trump--who has not been shy about deploring lack of public action on the Russia Hoax--has NOT called out either DoJ or the FBI with regard to the election. At least not that I'm aware of. Not institutionally, and not by personal names--such as Bill Barr.

UPDATE: Shipwreckedcrew has learned that the agent who contacted Braynard is from the FBI'S Los Angeles Field Office (h/t commenter atxnfo):

My take on that is a bit different than SWC's. My guess is that this relates to the referral from Las Vegas. As I recall, that referral was based on the issue of double voting--numerous CA residents were found to have voted in both CA as well as NV (where they had second residences). It would make sense for FBI LA to acquire Braynard's information in order to locate and interview those CA residents. For info, here is the territory covered by FBI LA:

Along with our main office in Los Angeles, we have 10 satellite offices, known as resident agencies, in the area.

  • Lancaster
    • County covered: Northeastern Los Angeles 
  • Long Beach
    • County: Southern Los Angeles
  • Los Angeles International Airport (LAX)
    • County: Los Angeles International Airport (LAX)
  • Orange County
    • County: Orange
  • Palm Springs
    • County: Eastern Riverside
  • Riverside
    • Counties: Riverside and San Bernardino
  • Santa Maria
    • Counties: Santa Barbara (partial jurisdiction) and San Luis Obispo
  • Ventura
    • County: Santa Barbara (partial jurisdiction) and Ventura
  • Victorville
    • County: San Bernardino
  • West Covina
    • County: Eastern Los Angeles


  1. Let's hope the FBI isn't getting involved to cover this up...

    1. If history is any indicator that seems to be the "go to" methodology.

      Assess, evaluate and identify.

      Insert investigate control.

      Threaten, seize, secure and intimidate.

      Alert the IC for narrative creation, control and counter coordination.

      Spread propaganda / misinformation, discreditation though MSM echo chambers.

      Entertain, control and distract any dissidence by placating and patronizing while speaking in grandiose terms about patience, integrity, values and restoration of institutional norms.

      Counter any further dissident by implying a stream of thin vail of non answers about production / nonproduction.

      Repeat until peasant amnesia kicks in or a bigger crisis comes along to change the focus.

      Mostly hold fast for statue of limitations to quietly expire.

      It's worked for the past several decades, why change anything now?

    2. Brilliantly encapsulated Devil an! This Devil Dog concurs.

    3. The Deep State Two-Step

    4. To my point, this young lady and at least one other she knows obviously feel intimidated by the DOJ showing up unannounced.

  2. "...there's never guarantee of a productive result."

    Ed Zachary.

    I have more faith in the President than I do some of his subordinates.

  3. Trump just threw shade on the DOJ and FBI on Maria Bartarowma’s show this morning for their lack of involvement election fraud - at least as best as the President knows??? Why would AG Bar keep the President uninformed of any significant investigations underway?

    1. There are inherent conflicts. The president as candidate for a second term is a private citizen. It's hard to separate that from his role as president, especially if there's GJ information involved--to which he wouldn't be entitled to have access.

    2. I hope you're right, Mark.

      Trump did tell Bartiromo this morning that he is not aware of any investigative activity by DoJ or FBI or Barr or Durham into the election.

      For anyone who is interested and who missed the initial broadcast the Trump interview is being rebroadcast on FoxNews at 3 pm EST today.

    3. @ Cassander

      I just listened to Trump, and he stated point blank that he's been told that FBI/DoJ ARE looking at this. That means there IS investigative activity.

    4. My bad if I wasn't paying close enough attention.

    5. Mark, I've just double-checked my own ability to still pay's what I found.

      At 17:07 Trump is alleging election fraud and says "how the FBI, the Department of Justice... maybe they're involved"

      Around 36:30 Bartiromo asked if Trump has received any briefing from his chief of cyber command on electronic interference.

      Trump says he's dealing with John Ratcliffe "who's fantastic" but "we're dealing with other people" and "we don't always's a long story Maria". "We're disappointed that other people didn't get involved."

      At 38:25, Trump and Bartiromo had the following exchange:

      Bartiromo: “You've laid out serious charges here". "Shouldn’t FBI be investigating? The DOJ?”

      Trump: “Missing in action, can’t tell you where they are. I asked, are they looking at it? Everyone says yes, they're looking at it...Where are they? I've not seen anything...They just keep moving along...They have their own views...Nobody has come to me and said the FBI has nabbed the people doing this scheme..."

      At 46:15 Trump says: Why isn't the FBI all over the place. They're not. They're not. Its an embarrassment to our country".

      There're some additional references in 'Trumpese' but I think nothing more conclusive. I guess you can conclude either way...the FBI and DoJ either are or they are not investigating.

      Either way, not too inspiring...

    6. "I asked, are they looking at it? Everyone says yes, they're looking at it ... Nobody has come to me and said the FBI has nabbed the people doing this scheme..."

      So, he states point blank that he's been told the FBI is investigating. They haven't "nabbed the people doing this scheme" but they're investigating.

      That's also what I said at the outset--if you want an election result reversed, the FBI is the wrong outfit to go to. They investigate crimes, and criminal investigation doesn't run on the timeline that a politician needs if he wants an election reversed.

  4. What is going to happen is the same thing that happened to the postal employee who whistleblew the Michigan fraud on back-dating the ballots. The people Braynard interviewed will be coerced into recanting with strategic leaks to the press.

    Guarantee you this is the purpose of getting Braynard's data- to intimidate the potential witnesses.

  5. I am sorry, it is just not possible to trust the FBI in this case- literally not possible given the last 4 years.

    1. Did you notice that I didn't issue any guarantees of my own?

    2. Was the issue of possible DOD and special forces involvement covered with Trump? Could Flynn be working with EzraCohen-Watnick, the new Director of Intelligence at DOD and Flynn’s former aide at the NSC?
      May hold more promise for Trump and the country if they are.

  6. The main drawback to secret police is that they are secret.
    Tom S.

  7. Typo: "By belief regarding why...." likely meant "My belief regarding why...."?

  8. With regard to Braynard's data, this is not an effective means to "cover-up" since Braynard still retains/has access to the data and witnesses.

    1. And also he acquired the data from publicly available sources. Anyone who wants it, can pay and acquire a copy. It's not his data really.

      His methodology of analysis is nothing secret either.

      My take on this is FBI might attempt to discredit his results, by running their own analysis and leaking any discrepancies they might find.

    Ship has an interesting take on this as always. Seems reasonable and give me some optimism. But will it be in time?

  10. Braynard says “I can't say with confidence who won this election, I don't think anyone can.” Assuming this all gets to SCOTUS, why wouldn't they say the same thing and decide that they should not do anything that would change the result, since they cannot determine who won?

    1. They cannot *determine* who won?
      Why not?
      Because skilled fraudsters make such determination impossible?
      Haven't some election "winners" been "overturned"?

  11. This is not fraud you are looking for...Russia, Ukraine fine. IRS,Benghazi,Clinton server,Hunter Biden, Joe Biden votes nope. I would like to be wrong, but wont hold my breath. 15 years as a fraud investigator for a Big 4 accounting firm and my fraud indicator red flags are off the charts, but too few people care to see what is in front of them. As a "friend" said to me today, "Trump is a Nazi." Why? Because he read an article on the Atlantic saying so, so it must be so.

  12. It appears to me that Barr has cut Wray and his cabal out of any supervision of the local FBI offices; and may well have informed the field offices not to take or obey orders from anyone in D.C.

    1. CTD what makes you say that? What could this mean? If this is true, and if Wray and his cabal aren't leaking like mad to the propagandists that Barr is going Rogue in service to the Orange Man, why not? Could it mean that Barr has a handle on them and good guys are gaining an upper hand? Or is this only speculation?