Patrick Byrne has been putting out his narrative of how Trump lost the White House. It's a narrative of backstabbing, betrayal, and incompetence. For the most part it's the only narrative we have--certainly the most extended and comprehensive narrative--and so we have to pay attention to it. Several commenters have been linking to it as well as to commenters on it, such as Larry Schweikart.
It goes without saying that Byrne's narrative doesn't have to be treated in an all-or-nothing fashion. Like any narrative, it may well reflect a mix of motives--some praiseworthy, but others possibly self serving. Nor do such mixed motives necessarily negate the factual basis of the narrative. There is also the question of Byrne's understanding of what happened and why, and especially in judging the motives of others. The battle over the election played out in a very rarefied legal environment--more so, probably, than any other moment in American history. The issues were often issues of first impression and in all cases required delicate balancing.
It goes without saying that none of the foregoing observations should be construed as casting aspersions on Byrne. The considerations of motive and understanding that I've touched on apply in every such analysis. For that reason I'm reproducing here a comment from regular commenter Cassander which suggests caveats that we should all keep in mind.
