I have read most of this thread... I think Byrne is what you call a ‘hanger-on’ - someone who thinks they are more important than they really are. He could never be privy to the real plan for fear of exposure.
I read it all. Byrne: He tried to get the goods. He tried to help. The deep state runs deep. The legal challenges were weak and wasted time on cases no judge wanted to touch. SCOTUS wanted no part of the election. The kracken was lackin because they couldn’t get any ballot evidence. If they could prove it to us simpletons they would have, but it’s wickedly complicated what happened.
I have read most of this thread... I think Byrne is what you call a ‘hanger-on’ - someone who thinks they are more important than they really are. He could never be privy to the real plan for fear of exposure.
Interesting take.
I'll admit I've been on the fence mostly, trying to somehow reconcile his version of the events vs the official narrative vs other narratives.
I guess none of us will ever really know. It's an interesting story nonetheless.
I read it all. Byrne: He tried to get the goods. He tried to help. The deep state runs deep. The legal challenges were weak and wasted time on cases no judge wanted to touch. SCOTUS wanted no part of the election. The kracken was lackin because they couldn’t get any ballot evidence. If they could prove it to us simpletons they would have, but it’s wickedly complicated what happened.
I agree.
Some of his implications were wild, especially regarding giuliani, trumps inner counsel etc.
Some of it is hard to believe.