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.

Fake Impeachment Redux: Wow, This Is Perfect!

What a great, concise, way to explain what's going on:

The post-presidency impeachment of Donald Trump isn’t a political stunt. It’s a serious effort to subvert democracy, and it’s rooted in the left’s belief that the American people are the greatest threat to America.

— Phillip Kline (@PhillDKline) January 26, 2021

Shipwreckedcrew makes what I believe is a sound point about impeachment after a president has left the office of the presidency. I'd been wondering about this, having read short comments by Glenn Reynolds and Ann Althouse, but wasn't totally satisfied. I found the notion of Leahy presiding at an impeachment trial offensive, yet I know that impeachments of judges have been handled by Senate committees, so there seemed to be a precedent. Here is the point that SWC makes, that the impeachment trial of a president is different because the head of one branch of government is at issue with the combined expressed judgments of the two houses of a second branch:

The Constitution says when it is the President being tried, the CJ shall preside. Joe Biden is President and he is not being tried. The reason for having the CJ is because one branch of Govt is seeking to remove the elected head of another branch. https://t.co/puuOEqq9Z9

— shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) January 26, 2021

While neither the Constitution nor the Federalist Papers actually go into this reasoning, Federalist Nos. 65-66 seem to me to be in accord with SWC's view. If you read these numbers, it seems clear that Hamilton envisions only a sitting president as subject to impeachment and does not envision anyone other than the Chief Judge of the SCOTUS presiding at a trial. The idea of the Senate holding a trial for the purpose of preventing We The People from electing to office someone of whom the Senate disapproves is repulsive. It also illustrates exactly what Phil Kline is talking about.

This Is All Very Disturbing

Banana USA:

National Guard Plans to Ask Thousands of Troops to Remain in DC Until Mid-March

The National Guard Bureau is working on a plan to call for thousands of volunteers from the 25,600 Guard members in Washington, D.C., to remain on duty in the city until as late as mid-March.

... 

As of Friday, the plan is to have up to 7,000 troops remain in D.C. through March 12, but those details are still in the planning stages, a National Guard official told Military.com.

Wow! Sounds like they know that we know, and they're scared. Everything in DC is poll driven, right? I'd like to know what their polls are telling them. And the continual reports that McConnell really wants Trump convicted in this Fake Impeachment Redux--that's very creepy too. It really is Banana Republic stuff. McConnell should be out in front of a microphone denying it all and saying how insane this is. It all tells the American people that there really was a Big Steal--not that we doubted that, but it's pretty solid confirmation when the gaslighting that's going on is so in your face.

And this says the same thing:

Tucker Re Assange And McConnell

As Tucker says, he doesn't know whether this is true, but this is what he's hearing:

Video: pic.twitter.com/kRYD58nAEn

— Daniel Chaitin (@danielchaitin7) January 20, 2021

Very Briefly Noted: Fight the impeachment, Donald

Don Surber has a fascinating blog, uncharacteristically lengthy:

Fight the impeachment, Donald

Teaser:

... the fix is in again. This time Republicans will vote against him and give Democrats the 67 votes they need to find the president guilty.

Official Washington wants to erase his presidency from history, and strip away his citizenship by blocking him from ever seeking office again. They want his head on a pike as a warning to others.

...

The plan is to hold the impeachment show trial concurrent with confirming Cabinet members and rubber-stamping his agenda.

Byron York asked, "But why should Republicans help Democrats with a kooky plan that would require voting to remove a president who is already gone?"

Answer: Because they hate Donald Trump and every one of the 75 million people who voted for him.

While I might try arguing against this scenario, I've now learned to be cautious about disagreeing with Surber. And it's true: Hatred is a deranging emotion that often blinds those in its grip to their true interests and to dangers ahead. That notion seems so far not to have crossed the mind of our Rulers, except to the extent that they think they can protect themselves by flooding DC with troops.

We shall see.

UPDATED: Go Ahead--Spit Into The Wind

Red State has an article up titled: Poll Reveals Democrats Pushing Impeachment Are Spitting In The Wind. It's a discussion of the results of a John McLaughlin Poll, which is covered in detail at the Washington Examiner. As you'll see, the poll covers more than just the impeachment. It was conducted before the latest impeachment, but also included questions on the Dem censorship drive:

Exclusive: 60% call impeachment a ‘waste of time,’ Big Tech backlash for censoring Trump

Here are the findings: