I hadn't thought of Matt Braynard and his work on the Big Steal for a while. But last night he appeared on Steve Bannon's War Room, which was picked up by TGP (I watched it there). You can watch EP 669 here (Blogger doesn't allow me to embed it, as far as I can figure out--Rumble, not Youtube). Braynard doesn't come on until about the 43 minute mark.
As I said, it turns out that Braynard is still on the Big Steal case and claims to have made enough progress at this point to come to some definite conclusions. You may recall that Braynard has been investigating election fraud in Election 2020, but strictly from a very traditional perspective. In other words, he's been coming through for-pay databases and public records to winkle out data on things like double voting, out of state voting, dead people voting, non-voters voting--the whole panoply of Dem election fraud practices. He doesn't go into the details with Bannon but he does state his conclusions (so far): There is excellent, strong evidence that Trump carried AZ, GA, and WI and, therefore, won the presidential election. In Braynard's own words:
What I’m finding and continuing to find, because we’re actually still doing research, and we’re looking forward to presenting it more aggressively without the constraints of the lawsuits we were entangled with initially, is that among those three states, the number of illegal ballots surpassed the margin of victory. Georgia, Wisconsin, and Arizona, without those three, Joe Biden isn’t president – and I think we can prove that fairly conclusively.
I was going to write a bit more on this topic, but Andrea Widburg at AmThinker has picked up on pretty much the same angle as I did (A data maven says fraud affected the election outcome). Here's why Braynard's work may turn out to be far more important going forward than many cynics might imagine.
Trump, of course, wisely never conceded the Big Steal. Now, Braynard is under no illusion that his work will somehow return Trump to the White House--certainly not before 2024. But neither does Braynard harbor any illusions about the second fake impeachment. He characterizes it forthrightly as, essentially, no more than a rerun of all the baseless smear charges that the Dems made against Trump for four years. It's simply a show trial being run with the hope to
1. Cancel Trump as a person and, above all, as a public political figure, and
2. Against all odds gaslight We The People into believing that the Zhou Baiden regime--with its wall to wall executive orders and no questions answered--is somehow legitimate.
This is also the very obvious meaning of the no-let-up efforts of the Establishment to force all public figures--now including Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley--to concede what Trump has refused to concede. To legitimate the Big Steal.
Braynard believes, as I hope will happen, that the evidence that he has so far amassed can be used by the Trump legal team to maintain that Trump had solid evidence to support urging We The People to demand that our elected representatives address the Big Steal rather than ratifying it in a fairly bogus rubber stamp proceeding--to insist on the fair and honest operatio of our constitutional order.
Trump's refusal to concede alone casts a pall over the Zhou Baiden regime's claim to legitimacy and the right to rule by executive decree. A public rehearsal and presentation of Braynards meticulously gathered data could nail that coffin, with its barely sentient occupant, shut. That is clearly what Trump wants to do.
Now, here's why you should read Widburg's article--for her conclusion. Of course in the world of elections, and especially of close elections, absolute certainty can sometimes be difficult to arrive at. But ...
... fraud is a different animal altogether. In the world of contract law, if the court concludes that one party was inveigled into the contract because the other party lied about fundamental facts, that contract is void ab initio. [i.e., 'from the beginning, meaning, the contract never came into existence and nothing that followed from it is binding on the victim party.] The other way of stating this doctrine is that “fraud vitiates everything.”
Let me say that again: “Fraud vitiates everything.”
Why shouldn’t that doctrine apply to the most important agreement in America, which is the Constitution? Think about it this way: The Constitution is, in essence, an agreement between the American people and their government. It delineates the limited form that the government is to take and, in the Bill of Rights, states explicitly the powers that the government lacks. As the Declaration of Independence states, when the government fails to abide by its obligations (and limitations) the people can dissolve that agreement. Again, it's a contract.
When it comes to elections, the Constitution is predicated upon elected federal officials, including presidents, taking office honestly. If the agreement is breached through fraud in the elections, that fraud should vitiate an alleged president’s right to occupy the office he claims.
If Matthew Braynard can prove that, in at least three of the contested states, massive fraud in the form of fake paper ballots led to Biden’s so-called victory, Biden has no right to occupy the White House. And if he has no right to occupy the White House, every act – every Executive Order, every person appointed, every rule made – is null.
I’m not saying this is a winning argument but it’s an argument.
Things could get interesting next week if Senate Republicans show even a smidgen of courage.
Here's the thing about this argument. Trump's lawyers don't actually have to make it, at least not explicitly. All they actually need to do is present the evidence in the context of arguing that Trump had every right under the First Amendment to present his views, because those views were not reckless but were backed up by evidence. The American people are plenty smart enough, still, to recognize the implications of that line of reasoning.
It appears to me that the Dems, with their fake impeachment, have placed themselves between a rock and a hard place. By adopting an everything-including-the-kitchen-sink approach they will make any effort to deny Trump a full defense appear patently unfair. In any event, Trump will make that argument sooner or later in more cogent form than he did on January 6. The legitimacy issue won't go away. On the other hand, if the trial is held and Trump's lawyers do make that argument, the results will be equally bad.
This looks very interesting.
BONUS: I highly recommend an article at American Greatness this morning:
What William Shakespeare can teach us about the Trump impeachment trial.
The author quite brilliantly compares Trump's position to that of Coriolanus in the Shakespeare play of the same name. Very enjoyable.