Wednesday, February 3, 2021

BRIEFLY NOTED: Matt Braynard Is Still On The Case

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:

‘I Banish You!’

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.


  1. I’m not understanding how almost everyone in the gop is not interested in fighting voter fraud or even investigating it.

    Or how the gop allowed Soros based Secretary of states to win, and did not fight them.

    And did not fight tooth and nail district attorneys that Soros backed.

    And did not fight the affirmative action initiative in California.

    And had few words about the violence against Trump rally attendees.

    But are so focused on virtual signaling on Representative Greene.


    1. GOP may not be contesting due to possible knowledge that the beneficiaries of those actions were not solely democrats.

    2. What good guys exist in the GOP have ample evidence that their party will not have their back in any dispute if the mob attacks them. The Dems nearly always have 100% solidarity--Franken might be the only one they kicked to the curb that I recall--and that allows Dems to take stands, say ridiculous things. They are like a shoal of bait fish that may turn 180 degrees but always does so together. The GOP is more like herd of sheep that are accustomed to having some number of the slowest, oldest, or stupidest members culled. Unfortunately, the thinning of the herd hasn't worked out from an evolutionary standpoint: somehow the GOP pols manage to produce slower, older, and stupider herd members despite the effects of natural selection.

    3. ...and it should be remembered that Franken was only kicked to the curb because (1) they thought they could use his ouster to put 'moral high ground' pressure on Trump and (2) there was no concern about losing his seat.

  2. I agree with Braynard when he says that conclusive evidence of fraud in crucial swing states would not, at this juncture, overturn the election, even on some void ab initio theory. There just isn't any judicially recognized method to overturn an election after the inauguration.

    But a conclusive finding of fraud could support an impeachment proceeding against Joe Biden AND Kamala Harris in a GOP-controlled House in 2023...Such a proceeding may not meet the old-fashioned standard of a high crime and misdemeanor, but for better or worse the Dems have trashed that standard with their first impeachment. Isn't the new standard for impeachment: "We don't like you!"

    And in a GOP-controlled House, the next in line for President if Biden and Harris were impeached would be the GOP-named Speaker of the House. Who by the way, does not have to be an elected Representative.

    Can anybody spell D-O-N-A-L-D T-R-U-M-P?

    Just spitballin'...

    [PS - This scenario would also require a 2/3 vote for conviction in the Senate. Braynard better get to work on his case for overwhelming fraud...]

    1. Yes, all the above. Very smart of Trump not to concede. The Dems, one way or another, may get a helluva lot more than they thought they bargained for with the Big Steal--we can all hope. If various things in the country continue to go to sh*t this could get very ugly very fast.

    2. In that alternate reality we were all apparently living in prior to November, 2020 (that we actually lived in a free country with free know...that we actually had representative government) I would have said 'The Dems are not going to like living by the 'rules' they themselves have set'..not one bit.

      Yet today, the context of our conversations are at times in terms of not be hunted down and jailed (or worse) for having a dissenting viewpoint, or being denied employment, or financing for not rolling over...

      You have to wonder how many people in Russia & China are watching and mumbling to themselves....'yeah, been there done that'.

      If Xiden and his henchmen keep it up, the chances of this getting really ugly are pretty good IMO.

      And that's exactly what they're planning on, hoping will happen.

    3. @Dave, in that alternate reality we were hanging over the edge of a cliff clinging to a few tufts of grass named Trump, Barr and Durham.

      Turns out getting 1 out of 3 right really wasn't enough..

    4. Even if a conclusive finding of fraud can be presented, how does it get presented to enough folks to make a dent, esp. if Sil. Valley etc. can define any questioning of the official totals, as aiding White Supremacism/ Insurrection.
      Until folks like Lindsey et on board, any such finding will matter little.

    5. Typo: "Until folks like Lindsey *Get on board...."

  3. ‘I Banish You!’

    So powerful an article. A must read.


  4. As a lifelong bureaucrat, sigh, I basically wrote for a living...reports, not epics unfortunately. Occasionally I would put together some sequence of words that others deemed "clever" and my head would swell...a wee bit. At that moment, I might fancy myself as a "writer"...but then I would read something written by Bob Tyrrell and his ilk, and I was reminded to keep my day job. I feel the same way after reading Glenn Ellmers' piece (of course, I never could work the Bard into any Federal report I ever wrote, but I digress). As Peterman would say: "now that's clever writing!" Congrats to all of youse on a job well done: Wauck, Widburg, and Ellmers...a veritable hat trick of perfect prose!

    1. Yes, I was very impressed too--with Ellmers' piece, not with myself. I've never read Coriolanus, but recall seeing it mentioned in a Dorothy Sayers mystery. I may have to find time, now, to go back and read it.

  5. Cockaine Mitch is elected for another 6 years. So are some other RINOs, probably with help from the Demshevik fraud machine. In fact, Mitch acted until his re-election, before openly betraying Trump and 75 million voters.

    I don't see at least for the next 6 years, how the wind turns.

    This battle is lost, globalist oligarchy won this one. It will take a total collapse and bounce from the bottom, which probably will be hastened by the recklessness of the same globalist oligarchy. Historians in the far future might call it another interregnum. I sure hope it will be short, as in a generation or two.

  6. I am going to make a comment that is in disagreement with the Widburg article. Not the conclusion, so much, but of a major premise of her argument. The premise that the Constitution is an agreement, mutual, contractual, or otherwise, between the People and government is, I contend, entirely false.

    The government was created as a servant of the people with strict prescriptions and proscriptions to do the bidding of the People. To bring the People’s choices, through the instrumentality of their representatives, to fruition, within the constraints imposed by the document of its creation. It was expected to have no more agency than a draught horse. There was never an “agreement” or contract. To consider it so is to validate Vindman’s thinking that, as an agent of the government, interagency to use his term, and representing a contractual “stakeholder”, he had every right to challenge the will of the People, as embodied by the Constitutionally chosen executive, as if he were advocating for a legitimate partner in the enterprise of U.S.A. Inc., a wholly owned proprietary establishment of We the People.

    This sort of thinking is precisely how we have come to the place we are now at; where the created has determined that he is not merely equal to his creator, but superior. The Constitution might be construed as the birth certificate of government, but it was never intended, and should not be given credence, as a “contract” between the People and the co-equal Deep State.

    The People created government as completely and entirely from the proto material of the Continental Congress, the Articles of Confederation, and the lessons of history as God created Adam from a lump of clay. There is no evidence that “government” was ever considered, or intended to be, a co-partner by the Founders. The servant has egregiously betrayed the master and the reckoning should reflect that, rather than be characterized as a mere contractual dispute.
    Tom S.

    1. I think to read some American history. The Constitutional Convention was not an initiative of The People but an initiative of the proto-Federalists to form a strong central government--while the opposition was otherwise engaged. As such, since the government initiated the proceedings and then submitted the results--it was all of dubious legality--to the states and the people for ratification, it did amount to a contract or compact.

    2. The Constitution was very much created on the initiative of the government. Not the people.

    3. Liberals, now in control have always believed themselves superior. Did you not hear Jimmy Kimmmel? "Amatuers" beat the hedge funders because #RussianDisruptors. And they continually pump out their "Do as I say, not as I do" every single time they turn around. If Braynard has the proof, we must hope that something is done to prevent this kind of farce from ever happening again and that it actually wakes up the willfully blind...It may not, since we all know that big picture is not how liberals operate as the short-term consequences of their actions are the most important. Eff the rest of us peasants!!

    4. At the time, we needed a vigorous and strong federal government, re Articles of Confederation.

      Today, the federal government is close to supreme as it gets without supplanting fully the states.

      It doesn’t matter what party is in power, we go only one way. Trump attempted, very imperfectly, to correct this, but he is just one man and his supporters in government, businesses, etc, are less than those that prefer authoritarianism..

    5. @Mark, I've long been troubled by your presentation of the Constitution's origins. You have referred to it as a coup and, here, as initiated by the government, specifically proto-Federalists without the counter of their Jeffersonian rivals.

      First, agreeing with TexasDude, the Articles were an abject failure and demanded significant improvement if the country was to be viable.

      Second, even if Jefferson was in France, so was Adams. And there were plenty of Jeffersonian's at the table during the convention. Perhaps the Constitution would have been better if Jefferson was present, but for all his genius Jefferson was an idiot when it came to reconciling his republican vision with the realistic geopolitical and economic needs of a sovereign union.

      Third, I cannot see this as the government forcing a contract on an unwitting people. Everyone knew the Articles were a failure, and the convention was called by the various states to address its problems. Did the convention exceed its mandate? It certainly did. Was this a secret? It was an open secret. Even though the proceedings were secret, it was known that they were making major changes, and some state leaders like Gov Clinton (NY) worked hard to prevent losing the outsized power (control of NY harbor) that a true federal union would bring about.

      Fourth, it was not submitted for mere state ratification, but required plebiscites for passage. In other words, not rammed down our throats.

      The framers' main errors, in my view, were believing that a free people would never give up their liberty, and failing to recognize and plan for the fact that the constitution would not always be favored with a moral and religious people.

      That said, they did a d@mned good job. I don't think they would be appalled at today's developments - not in the way that people imagine. I think they would recognize that America has gone the way of every civilization and they would call for a new convention. It's likely that they would recognize, in today's ideological split, a difference so vast as to render union impossible, not unlike the original split between patriots and loyalists. And let's not forget: the loyalists left. But now there's nowhere left to go, only lines on a map that may or may not have enduring validity.

    6. I won't respond in detail, simply because nothing you're saying vitiates what I've already said. A coup can be popularly accepted. The fact that a prior form of government was inadequate to the federalist vision does not mean that the steps taken didn't amount to a coup. The fact is that the guiding lights of this effort conspired in advance and were all on one side of the political divide--they pretty much steamrolled the anti-federalists. You admit that the convention exceeded any conceivable mandate. That's a coup, and they had Washington waiting in the wings, the military hero. The fact that the result proved acceptable doesn't change that. Also, the split wasn't simply between patriots and loyalists. The "patriots" were also split between federalists and anti-federalists. As it turns out, some of the anti-federalists decided they rather liked a strong central government--once they got their hands on the levers of power themselves.

    7. I should add:

      "they did a d@mned good job."

      The job they did led directly, repeat, directly to the Civil War.

  7. See phoenix/VN.


  8. I’m surprised they kept Cheney in the gop leadership...

  9. Chapter 3 of Patrick Byrne`s recollections:
    Looks like Mark Meadows also doesn`t come out too well

    and an opinion by Larry Schwiekart:


    1. I read Schweikart and it makes sense.

    2. Agree Schweikart makes sense.

      Byrne chapter 3 I’ve started.

      Makes sense that McConnell would have pulled the trigger on impeachment if Trump had really challenged the vote.

      My guess is Rudy and the chief of staff were over the head.

      I’m still shocked at Barr’s actions.

      I wonder who enabled the election fraud to happen on the Trump and GOP side, either deliberately or through incompetence.

      Trump I believe trusted his subordinates that they had everything under control before, and after the election, for the voter fraud.

    3. from part 4:

      "What I was told was this: Melania had been warned by a government official that if Trump served another term he would be JFK’ed. It may even have been someone in the Secret Service itself, in a “We will not be able to protect him” sense. The threat included another family member as well, per the telling. I find it hard to believe that anyone in the Secret Service itself would ever say that, but the source of the information to me had otherwise been blemishless, and the claim was that whoever (perhaps Secret Service, perhaps someone else) had said this to Melania, it was someone from whom such a claim would be taken seriously. Melania was begging Donald not to fight, and simply to concede and get out of Washington with his family."

      I`m actually surprised it hasn`t happened before this.


    4. In part 3 he goes on about how he and Flynn and the lawyer were explaining to Trump how he could use his EO of 2018 and an EO of Obama, to find that there was foreign interference, and then he could do "big" things.

      That doesn`t quite ring true. Why would Trump need someone to explain his own EO to him? Why would Trump sign this EO if he didn`t know what it was?


    5. I've read Byrnes' Chapter 3.

      One thing I learned in over 40 years law practice is that legal process is as important as legal substance.

      What I mean by this is that you can be right on the law, but the process necessary to achieve the legal outcome is so expensive, time-consuming, uncertain and/or consequential that the practical substantive right simply cannot be realized. Or, putting it another way, the risk that it cannot be realized exceeds the likelihood that it can. Another way of putting it is that the election may well have been stolen from Trump but that doesn't mean there was a practical process to vindicate his rights.

      This is what due process is all about.

      Like others, I don't know what to make of Byrne. Even if I give him the benefit of the doubt, I think he ignores and/or downplays the practical process problems with the purported Flynn/Powell/Byrne plan. These are probably the problems that Cipollone and Meadows were rightfully focussed on, but which Byrne essentially dismisses as disloyalty.

      A few come to mind. For one, deploying any kind of federal troops or police based on an Executive Order (as opposed to enacted law) would have raised enormous political opposition. There was also no process for any kind of military-supervised vote recount and the process would have surely been viciously attacked by Trump's opponents and enemies. Just the idea of Byrnes' identifying Flynn as some kind of 'Field Marshal' conjures up images of a comic Grand Duchy of Fenwick (if anyone here remembers the allusion) kind of situation.

      I also suspect that while the Flynn/Powell/Byrne team strongly suspected that fraud could be quickly proved in the six counties, it was by no means a sure shot. Byrne is silent on the numerous impediments that would have been placed in Trump's way. I can imagine Cipollone and Meadows advising Trump that a failed process would bring unimaginable harm and chaos to the country.

      My takeaway is that, for whatever reason and given constitutional uncertainties, Trump was unprepared, and therefore as a practical matter unable, to contest election fraud by means of any process which was likely to work.

      This means that the status quo is that presidential elections can be stolen by means of local fraud and that it is farcical for the Democrats to argue that just because there is no process to contest 21st Century election fraud, that fraud did not occur and cannot have occurred.

      I cannot imagine a greater fault line in the foundation of our Constitutional processes than an unresolved weakness in the Presidential election process which allows the 'loser' to successfully claim victory.

      Surely this crack would (and will in time) bring the whole house down if not resolved. I think the Democrats (in this case, as in so many others arising during the Trump Era) are playing with fire.

    6. I agree. I don't say that there may not have been backstabbers or quitters in the WH, but based on the past I'd be cautious about identifying Cipollone or Meadows as either. Plus, we have to assume--based on the evidence--that Trump is a fairly shrewd guy who listens to advice.

      Cassander, I'm gonna reproduce this comment in a separate post.

  10. Sadly, Trump lost the election counting. In the USA and every other 3rd world dictatorship, elections are won by the counters and the counting. Voting does not matter.

  11. George Carlin on Charley Rose supposedly about the election of 2016 ... Carlin reaffirms George Washington’s warning about factionalism and that the American people are getting what they deserve.

  12. For those interested, here are links to the four existing chapters (of which I am aware) of Patrick Byrne's 'How DJT Lost the White House'