Introduction

Just days ago, on an episode of Conservative Daily Podcast titled “GOPers Covering Up Election Fraud”, insurrectionist Colorado militiaman Joe Oltmann—whose presence in Donald Trump’s Insurrection Eve “command center” at the Willard Hotel in Washington was extensively covered by Proof here and here—lit into his one-time insurrectionist compatriot Patrick Byrne over a statement Byrne made about him.

In the relevant podcast segment, which begins with sixteen minutes remaining in the hour-plus recording linked to above—the very moment that Oltmann receives, live on-air, a message from someone alerting him to Byrne’s February 3 videotaped statement, which accuses Oltmann of regularly discussing a coming Second Civil War in private—Oltmann goes on a long rant about Byrne that has significant repercussions for the future of the United States.

And yet, this is only one of several transformative pieces of evidence that Proof reveals in the article below, as it turns out Oltmann’s response to Byrne is a falling domino that has caused others to topple—launching a new front in the January 6 investigation.

Colorado Militant Joe Oltmann Drops a Bombshell

Here’s what Joe Oltmann says at “15:39” remaining in the podcast above:

Hey, so you [referring to his podcast audience] need to know this: I got attacked by Patrick Byrne today. Somebody just told me I got attacked by Patrick Byrne.

So I’m just going to say this—mister [podcast] producer, you’re going to have to bleep this word—fork {sic} Patrick Byrne.

He [Byrne] said, “Given the whiff of violent language that I’m hearing [from certain fellow ‘election integrity’ advocates], I think I must no longer refrain [from speaking on Oltmann’s past statements about civil war].”

[Oltmann now addressing his co-host, Max McGuire]: Have I ever called for violence? Have I ever called for violence? [McGuire does not respond.] I’ve [only] asked people to get in the gap {sic}. I’ve asked people to do the right thing.

And so Patrick Byrne’s mad at me, right? Patrick Byrne’s mad at me. I’m not the guy who worked for the CIA! I’m not the guy who worked for the FBI! I’m not the guy who had an ex-girlfriend [convicted and deported Kremlin asset Maria Butina] live in my house and set her up—the Russian, Marie {sic} whatever! I’m not the one that did that!

I’m not the one that on January 6 [2021], walked in [to Team Trump’s Willard Hotel command center]—while the whole place is in a frenzy because of what was going on in D.C. and the propaganda they [the media, federal government, and the political left] were building while the FBI was creating what was happening at the Capitol—I’m not the one who walked in and asked [Trump lawyer Rudy] Giuliani, “Hey, do me a favor: can you go ask President Trump for a pardon [for me]?”

I’m not the one that did that. No—Patrick Byrne did that.

Oltmann’s bizarre empathy for the Russian spy Butina notwithstanding—and, for that matter, the dubious notion that Byrne ever worked for the FBI or CIA notwithstanding—the idea that as the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol unfolded Patrick Byrne hurried to the nerve center of Team Trump’s Insurrection Day operations and asked Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani for a presidential pardon is extremely telling.

As Oltmann continues speaking of Byrne, his story becomes even more dramatic—and troubling.

I’m not the one who was part of an election audit in Arizona that the only reason that it [the 2020 presidential election results] weren’t decertified in Arizona is because the report [from Patrick Byrne compatriot Doug Logan’s Cyber Ninjas outfit] was written like trash.

Logan got on this show and said, “It [using the term ‘fraud’ in his audit report] would have created a constitutional crisis.” I’m not the one where {sic} Logan got up here and said, “Oh, by the way, I fell asleep the night before the [Arizona audit] report was due.”

I’m not the one who said that the information contained in [pro-Trump data scientist] Jovan [Pulitzer’s] report is crap. No, that was Logan that did that. Logan said that what Jovan had [data allegedly proving the 2020 presidential election in Arizona was stolen] was garbage, and that he wouldn’t put it in the [Cyber Ninjas’ audit] report.

I’m not the one that said that.

Beyond the cracks in the insurrectionist cause that this rant reveals, it also hints at a topic that will return in the secretly recorded Patrick Byrne-Lin Wood phone call that Proof details below: the notion that, behind the scenes, the supposedly “independent” post-election Arizona “audit” that Patrick Byrne, Michael Flynn, and Trump lawyer Sidney Powell funded to the tune of millions of dollars was in fact a mere byproduct of clandestine backroom debates between insurrectionist Republican legislators in Arizona, among them the Oath Keepers-cum-politicians Wendy Rogers and Mark Finchem, fringe Trumpist “experts” like Pulitzer, and far-right activists like Oltmann.

Indeed, Oltmann implies that Doug Logan was so concerned about the pressures he was receiving to doctor his audit—including pressure from political figures who had publicly said their voters could rely on Logan’s work-product precisely because it was independent— that he told other Trumpists that to do as they were demanding of him would lead to a “constitutional crisis.” That crisis could have, it goes without saying, provoked precisely the Second Civil War Byrne insists Oltmann has been demanding.

But it gets worse.

Oltmann continues:

This guy [Patrick Byrne] wants to attack me. And he’s not just attacking me, he’s attacking [election-fraud conspiracy theorist and current Massachusetts gubernatorial candidate] Dr. Shiva [Ayyadurai]. But you know what? He [Byrne] attacked Dr. Shiva {sic} but—I just want to point this out—not before offering [Ayyadurai] fifty grand [$50,000] to be on his [‘election integrity’] team.

{Oltmann mimicking Byrne} “Hey, come work for me!” [But] as soon as you don’t want to work for Patrick Byrne—“Controlled Opposition” Patrick Byrne—[as] soon as you don’t want to do that, you become the enemy.

And now you have a guy who’s doing really good work {Oltmann is referring to himself} on an audit in New Mexico, [and] you want to attack [him]? I don’t care what you think about Lin Wood or about [insurrectionist New Mexico State University law professor] David K. Clements. I don’t care what you think about what they say about General [Michael] Flynn. I’ve never said anything [about any of that]. But if you {Oltmann is referring to Byrne} want to go “scorched Earth,” pal, let’s go!

Matter of fact, come on [Conservative Daily Podcast]! If you have enough guts.

But I don’t think Patrick Byrne does. I don’t think he has guts! Unless he’s trying to plan [against] and ruin people behind their backs. And hire media personalities to get into everybody’s family! No, I don’t think he [Byrne] has any balls.

Putting aside the now-cresting paranoia infecting the insurrectionist “movement”—evident in Oltmann’s casual suggestion that not only is Byrne secretly working for the federal government, but that the federal government is using Byrne and other plants to bring down the movement from the inside—this portion of Oltmann’s diatribe underscores that (a) Trump’s insurrection is spreading to states whose post-election “election integrity” battles have been much less discussed in major media, like New Mexico, and (b) the insurrection is currently experiencing—as we will see much more detail below—a major schism federal investigators can exploit if they move quickly.

On one side of this schism are Michael Flynn and his allies—militants like Byrne and Roger Stone who are hoping Flynn will run for President of the United States in 2024 if Trump is unable or unwilling to do so—while on the other are men who are (if this is even possible) more radical than Flynn and his QAnonist cohort, including Wood, Clements, and (albeit he doesn’t proclaim it directly here) Oltmann. This latter group of insurrectionists would be called dead-enders were they in another nation, meaning they believe it may be time for their political movement to disengage from American democracy altogether by ceasing to vote and, as Oltmann has indeed often implied, turning to violence. In lay terms, one can think of these two camps as (1) those who wish to steal the 2024 presidential election via a massive disinformation campaign, and (2) those who wish for there to be no 2024 presidential election at all, with American democracy replaced by a continent-spanning neo-fascist autocracy they will maintain at the barrel of a gun.

The above is no exaggeration. If you watch hours of videos of what these few men are saying to one another and the followers they’ve radicalized, you will understand this.

But Oltmann’s rant is most significant for the way it returns to the subject of Patrick Byrne in a fashion that Congress cannot now ignore (emphasis supplied):

You want to know what else?

I’m not the guy who stole a movie from a guy under contract! I’m not the one that did that. And then used {indiscernible} to make money! I’m not the one that did that! No, that’s you, Patrick Byrne. You did that. You stole it. Not me. You did. And if you want to go through all the details of this, I’m game. You want to sit on this show and run your mouth to me?

Why doesn’t everybody go to Patrick Byrne’s page and ask him, “Why did you ask for a pardon on January 6?” {Addressing Byrne}: Tell me! Why did you ask for a pardon? Why did you walk in there [Trump’s Insurrection Week Willard Hotel command center] and ask Giuliani for a pardon! Please—tell me!

I didn’t say a word about it [when it happened]. [And] I was sitting right next to you!

And here’s the bad part about it, Patrick Byrne: there was some idiot behind us—I don’t even know how he got into the place—that was videoing {sic} it! While you’re asking for a pardon!

So go ahead and tell the American people why you asked for a pardon.

Why did you say [to Giuliani], “What I did [before January 6] could [put] me in jail for a thousand years”? Why? You tell me!

This is explosive testimonial evidence—for almost too many reasons to count. But here are five key ones:

(1) Oltmann previously claimed that a picture of him in Trump’s command center on January 6 could not have been him—and could not have been taken on January 6—as he was never in the command center on January 6. Apparently, that was a lie.

Oltmann has said in the past that the reason he was never in Giuliani’s Willard Hotel suite on January 6 was that he was in a telecommunications-secure Faraday cage at Trump’s State Department trying to convince high-level Mike Pompeo allies to help Trump overturn the 2020 election.

But here Oltmann admits to being in the command center on Insurrection Day. This turns him into precisely the high-value January 6 witness Proof long ago wrote he was.

(2) Oltmann now says that he can testify to things said to—and presumably by—the then-president’s personal attorney on Insurrection Day.

According to Oltmann, he was sitting right in front of Giuliani for some period of time on January 6, 2021, and has clear recall of the events of the day. This means that Oltmann can tell Congress not only about what Patrick Byrne may have said during and/or immediately after the attack on the Capitol, but also what was said by Giuliani and others who—during the period of time Oltmann was in the command center—had direct contact with Giuliani. One of those people was Donald Trump, who called in to the command center several times on Insurrection Day.

If the then-president was on speakerphone during those calls; or if Giuliani related the substance of the calls to those around him (either conversationally or as part of issuing new marching orders to Trump’s legal team) as soon as his conversation with the president was over; or if—as major media reports, and as we all learned during congressional hearings in the Trump-Ukraine scandal is a penchant of Trump’s—Trump was speaking so loudly to Giuliani during their calls that his voice could be heard by individuals not on the call, Joe Oltmann may be able to testify under oath to statements made by Donald Trump in the midst of the January 6 attack on the Capitol.

(3) Oltmann now insists that there is video evidence of the discussions that occurred in Trump’s command center on Insurrection Day.

This is, put simply, astounding. Proof, and I imagine many of you, would surmise that it’s never been imagined—by any congressional, criminal, or independent investigator—that the internal machinations of Team Trump on Insurrection Day were subject to audio recording and/or videotaping. But Oltmann says that’s exactly what happened.

{Note: And Proof now has additional evidence—see below—suggesting that Oltmann is right.}

(4) Oltmann doesn’t just say that he heard Patrick Byrne ask Rudy Giuliani for a presidential pardon from a few feet away. He heard Byrne admit to federal crimes.

One cannot go to federal prison “for a thousand years” just for committing a single violation of a federal criminal statute. Any person claiming that they could receive consecutive decades-long federal criminal sentences can only be referring to a very small block of federal offenses.

In this context, federal investigators would likely assume that Byrne is confessing to Seditious Conspiracy, many counts of Election Fraud, Espionage, or Treason. While this roster is necessarily speculative, it nevertheless stands in here as a reasonable assessment of the range (and gravity) of the federal offenses Byrne appeared to be concerned about in speaking to the president’s personal lawyer on Insurrection Day.

(5) Oltmann’s level of hatred for Patrick Byrne means that he’ll betray him if federal criminal or congressional investigators put Oltmann under oath, and that Byrne will sometime thereafter be put in the position of having to himself testify under oath and do one of the following three things: (i) assert his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination (which he says he will never do); (ii) admit to some serious federal crimes; or (iii) perjure himself.

As a former federal criminal investigator, I can tell you that one of the investigative goldmines you always hope for is two witnesses on the other side of your case who hate one another and are telling stories that can’t be reconciled. In his January 6 confession, Byrne says repeatedly to his audience of tens of thousands of viewers that he will speak candidly, comprehensively, and without an attorney to the House January 6 Committee because he did nothing wrong and has nothing to hide. Proof urges the Committee to take Byrne up on his offer, as the evidence tends to suggest that in fact Byrne did quite a bit that was illicit and possibly criminal in the run-up to January 6. And now Joe Oltmann says that Byrne has confessed to this in his presence.

If both Oltmann and Byrne are subpoenaed by the Committee and testify under oath, something must break. And since we didn’t even know for certain that Byrne was in the Willard Hotel command center on Insurrection Day until Oltmann confirmed it earlier this month; and since we now know that there’s videotape of what Byrne said to Giuliani (or else it was destroyed by Byrne or at Byrne’s direction, which could be its own federal crime, depending on the circumstances); something will give if both men are put under oath. And what that give will get Congress is intelligence about what was said and done in Trump’s Insurrection Day command center as our nation’s capital was under attack.

How We Know Joe Oltmann Isn’t Lying About Patrick Byrne’s Live Confession to Serious Federal Crimes

A good criminal investigator knows that people lie—a lot—and that when people are enmeshed in certain emotions they’re even more likely to lie, especially if the emotion in question is vengeful anger. So how do we know that Oltmann isn’t lying about what he says he heard Byrne say from a distance of a few feet away? Certainly, given the amount of anger toward Byrne that Oltmann demonstrates in the video linked to atop this article, we can see that Oltmann’s attack on his onetime compatriot comes at a time that he is trying to everything he can not just to embarrass Byrne but to destroy his reputation in the MAGA “movement.”

{Note: It must be remembered that Joe Oltmann isn’t revealing Patrick Byrne’s confession because he wants Byrne to be arrested or cares about any federal crimes Byrne may have committed. Rather, Oltmann’s point is simply that on Insurrection Day Patrick Byrne was thinking about himself and his own safety and security—not the advancement of Trump’s insurrection. While outside Trump’s insurrectionist inner circle Oltmann’s words will be perceived as contributing evidence to a possible future criminal indictment of Byrne, inside that circle Oltmann’s accusation will be taken as merely an indictment of Byrne’s character.}

So how do we know Oltmann’s story is true? Because he’s told it before—as a time he wasn’t angry at Byrne or in any was quarreling with him. Indeed, in his prior version of the story Oltmann actually elided Patrick Byrne’s name in order to protect Byrne’s reputation.

Here’s what Oltmann said in an earlier episode of Conservative Daily Podcast (about fifteen minutes into the episode):

I was there in [Washington on] January 6th. I met with Mayor Giuliani. I met with other people—because I was asked to. I was asked to meet with those people. And I’m going to say something to you {addressing insurrectionist Couy Griffin, then a guest on the podcast} and you may hate me for saying it: President Trump surrounded himself with what he thought was the best of a very, very bad situation. [But] Washington is a cesspool of people who have an unquenchable thirst for power and money. Unquenchable!

I remember sitting at the table [in Rudy Giuliani’s suite at the Willard Hotel] and someone walked in and sat down—and this is after [the riot on] January 6! It was after [the riot on] January 6!—sits down and says [to Giuliani], “You’ve got to get me a full [presidential] pardon.” And I look at him like, “What is wrong with you? Why would you say that?” And this person is staring—looking—right at Mayor Giuliani.

And I’m asking everyone [in the Willard suite on January 6], “Where’s the plan? To just pull out the evidence [of a stolen election]? Where’s the maturity? Where’s the basic maturity as men? [And] as women—whatever, there were women there [in Giuliani’s suite], too. Where are the basic principles of being focused on the goal of ‘truth only’?” And Couy, it [the maturity] wasn’t there [in Giuliani’s suite]. It wasn’t there. It was self-serving—people looking for power and authority.

And look, I haven’t said anything [about this] up to this point. Because I’m actually disgusted that we haven’t been able to get back to the point where we hold people responsible for the third of November [2020]. Because we have plenty of evidence!

When you {he is referring to Trump here} have that many Judases around you, and the Judases spread like a cancer—man, it’s taken down better men.

And I don’t know if there’s a whole lot of men better than President Trump. I just don’t.

That doesn’t mean he’s not flawed—I think he is courageous—but I do think that people went back to their homes [post-January 6], devastated, they went back to barely [having enough money for] paying the bills, in many cases. [They] used everything to come out to Washington and try to save our nation; but I also believe that that fire that he [Trump] lit is not going out, and they’re trying to figure out how to put it out, and they can’t. They can’t.

Besides Oltmann here repeating his allegation about Patrick Byrne at a time when he was not looking to out Byrne before the entire MAGA “movement,” what is notable in Oltmann’s monologue above is that he says he accounted Byrne—as of January 6, 2021—as being among the small number of key people Trump “surrounded himself with” in the final weeks of his presidency, indeed placing Byrne so deep inside Trump’s inner circle that he analogizes Byrne to one of Jesus’s (thus, Trump’s) apostles: Judas.

In a Follow-Up Confession, Byrne Has Now Accidentally Bolstered Joe Oltmann’s Accusation Against Him

Many people don’t realize that after Patrick Byrne’s recent January 6 confession was wildly successful in the only terms Byrne appears to care about—viewership—the former CEO took to Rumble a second time, offering a 25-minute “addendum” to his already 87-minute confession of participation in a coup plot. While not quite as news-filled as his initial confession, Byrne’s addendum is nevertheless extremely startling, for at least three key reasons:

(1) It turns out that Byrne was filming a movie as he was participating in a coup.

Byrne proudly cites his film The Deep Rig as having been filmed around the time of January 6. This is also the period during which this author received two private messages on Facebook from a self-identified Byrne intermediary (Proof is eliding the name of this person to avoid them being harassed):

This author did not respond to Byrne’s pre-election entreaty, though it is certainly telling that Roger Stone is now openly recruiting Michael Flynn to run for president in 2024; Byrne and Flynn have lately become nearly inseparable, according to Byrne’s confession and to statements he makes in his recent phone call with Lin Wood (see below); and prior to the 2020 election, Byrne appears to have been in touch with both Stone and Flynn about election issues—even as he was filming a movie on elections and deeply interested in a man whose actions determined, in large part, the outcome of the 2016 election: former FBI director James Comey. Byrne’s friendship with Flynn, his courtship of Giuliani, and his clandestine meeting with Stone, coupled with his fixation on the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections, puts him much deeper inside the orbit of Trumpist “ratfucking” (a political term of art for election-related dirty tricks) than we previously had reason to believe.

And that matters—for reasons we’ll soon see.

But Patrick Byrne’s hubris aside, he seems to have literally cast himself as the implied protagonist of a documentary in which by all rights he should’ve been a minor player at best. Indeed, the significance of the revelation that Byrne was filming a movie during the period of time he was most involved in the so-called “election integrity” movement is that it may explain why Oltmann said of Byrne’s plea for a Trump pardon on January 6, “And here’s the bad part about it, Patrick Byrne: there was some idiot behind us—I don’t even know how he got into the place—that was videoing {sic} it! While you’re asking for a pardon.”

If the person filming Byrne on January 6 was doing so for the purposes of Byrne’s film—and admittedly it’s hard to imagine anyone turning on a video camera in that space, amidst that context, and on that day for any other reason—it means that somewhere out there is the “b-roll” for The Deep Rig; that Congress can find out who has that roll (or a copy of it) simply by looking at the credits of Byrne’s “documentary”; and that a congressional subpoena could thereby put the House January 6 Committee in possession of video from inside Trump’s January 6 war room on the very day of the attack.

{Note: At least as it’s been covered by The Arizona Republic, Byrne’s film seems to have a very interesting group of people behind it—from the standpoint of a criminal investigator. Among those who, at first blush, appear to have been in some way involved in Byrne’s film are Mike Flynn’s brother Joe Flynn, movie producer Steve Lucescu, former Mike Flynn employee Phil Waldron, film director Roger Richards, Bob Hughes, and none other than Oltmann himself. All appeared with Byrne on a panel during the film’s Arizona premiere, perhaps explaining this Oltmann comment from above: “I’m not the guy who stole a movie from a guy under contract! I’m not the one that did that. And then used {indiscernible} to make money! I’m not the one that did that! No, that’s you, Patrick Byrne. You did that. You stole it. Not me. You did. And if you want to go through all the details of this, I’m game.” One wonders, too, about Byrne’s willingness or ability to stand up to Phil Waldron’s alleged “black ops” plot if he was making a movie with him at the time, or even contemplating doing so at some point in the future. Byrne could hardly make a documentary alongside people with whom he’d burned his bridges.}

Not only would this film, or what videotaping of Byrne was happening in preparation for some future film project, presumably show Byrne confessing to federal crimes, it would also reveal Giuliani’s response to Byrne’s request for a corrupt pardon (“corrupt” as Byrne was asking for a pardon from a man with whom he co-planned a self-coup).

And this is only a small slice of what Byrne’s film’s B-roll would presumably reveal. Who knows what other evidence Byrne created of his own actions in the lead-up to January 6, on the day of the insurrection itself, and in the days immediately thereafter?

(2) We now know what Byrne did right after the attack on the Capitol on January 6.

In his initial January 6 confession, Byrne insisted that he and Flynn were so disgusted by Trump’s speech at the White House Ellipse—not because it was inciting a violent insurrection, but because it was vain, though of course this has been a Trump calling card for as long as either Byrne or Flynn has known Trump—that they immediately returned to Trump International Hotel (where Byrne had a block of rooms and where Flynn says he never went), packed their bags in preparation for departure, and left D.C.

Now Byrne says that that isn’t so.

Instead, Byrne now says, he stayed in D.C. through January 9 to coordinate transferring his entire team of election-focused cyber-intelligence “experts” to Michael Lindell’s custody (though it’s not clear what this looked like from either a financial, logistical, or operational standpoint, it’s how Byrne describes it). This is significant because we know that less than a week after Byrne now says he left Washington, the same Lindell was seen entering the Oval Office with documents that advised then-President Trump to declare martial law and replace the leadership of the U.S. intelligence community with individuals now suspected to have been involved in Byrne’s coup plot (most notably, Kash Patel and Frank Colon). When members of the White House press corps, having been able to take photos of Lindell’s document, asked him about it, he claimed he hadn’t read it and that it had been given to him by a group of “lawyers”—quite possibly, though we certainly don’t know this for certain yet, the same team of lawyers that had flocked around Team Kraken and Team Trump at the Willard Hotel during Insurrection Week. Byrne’s “addendum” is the first time we have ever heard of a connection between Byrne’s coup plot and the one Lindell proposed in the days after the attack on the Capitol, while Trump was still president and therefore still had the entire might of America’s federal executive branch within his command and control.

If indeed Byrne remained active in coup plotting even after begging Trump (via his attorney Giuliani) for a presidential pardon, it could mean one of several things: (1) Byrne was so certain that he had committed federal crimes that he was willing to do anything, even end American democracy via a declaration of martial law, to ensure Trump remained president (and he himself remained free of potential legal liability for helping to stage a self-coup); (2) Byrne was so invested in corruptly receiving a pardon from his co-conspirator Trump that he continued plotting with Trump post-January—even though he knew it was fruitless—because he thought doing so might earn him a pardon; (3) he floated ending our democracy purely to make his current or future film more entertaining and lucrative; (4) Michael Lindell was, from the start, more involved in the coup plot than Byrne’s initial confession admitted, and Lindell was elided from Byrne’s initial account in part because Lindell was the Team Kraken member who had brought intel from corrupt Brazilian politician Eduardo Bolsonaro to Team Trump; (5) Byrne’s plea to Giuliani to get him a pardon was in fact primarily an attempt to get back in front of Trump in the Oval Office, which (once Byrne had failed to do this) he and his fellow insurrectionists reacted to by sending Lindell instead, as Lindell did not have the baggage of having sold Trump on a failed coup plot on December 18, 2020); or (6) a combination of these—or even all of them at once.

Regardless of what precisely Byrne was up to on January 7, January 8, and January 9 of 2021, and whether or how this was connected to what may be deemed a second coup plot pushed by Lindell around January 15, 2021, if Byrne was filming The Deep Rig during this period it means there is likely still footage of who Byrne was speaking to and working with as he and/or Lindell conceived of a means of keeping Trump in power that did not involves GOP state legislators in the way Peter Navarro’s by-then-failed “Green Bay Sweep” plot had.

This, then, is the chief significance of Patrick Byrne’s revised insurrection timeline: it underlines that, whatever he might now say about having been opposed to “black ops” prior to January 6, once Navarro’s political coup plot had failed it seems Team Kraken fell back upon illicit plans Trump had only provisionally and partially green-lit when Byrne, Flynn, and Sidney Powell met with him in the Oval Office on December 18.

Up until now, journalists and even congressional investigators appear to have treated Lindell’s January 15 Oval Office as the last gasp of a lunatic’s (Lindell’s) ramblings. Yet the timeline and other details we garner from Byrne’s now two January 6–related confessions indicate that the January 15 Trump-Lindell meeting, however seriously or casually Trump may have taken it at the time, was a legitimate and concerted effort by previously unidentified persons to orchestrate a coup in the post-“Green Bay Sweep” political reality. In other words, by admitting he was coordinating closely with Lindell on January 7, January 8, and January 9 of 2021, Byrne may be admitting to involvement in what could be termed “Coup 2.0.”

Worst of all, Byrne would have done so after already being on video admitting that his past actions were criminal. If this video is recovered, it could establish the necessary criminal mens rea (“guilty mind”) for a charge of Seditious Conspiracy against Byrne for, at a minimum, his post-January 6 activities. For this reason, Byrne’s addendum to his first January 6–related confession may be even more important than his original confession.

(3) Byrne gives new details of “Meeting #3”—his, Powell, and Flynn’s private two-hour meeting with Trump in the presidential residence on December 18, 2020.

This third stage of the raucous December 18 White House meeting between Team Kraken and then–President Trump is important because it lasted past midnight on December 18 (thus, into the wee hours of December 19), and it is during those wee hours that Trump for the first time acknowledged—via his Twitter feed—both Peter Navarro’s “Green Bay Sweep” and domestic terrorist Ali Alexander’s Stop the Steal plot scheduled for January 6 (see below). We still don’t know who was present during this two-hour period in Trump’s White House residence besides Byrne, Powell, and Flynn, though Proof notes again that it was Navarro’s office that made the first stage of the December 18 meeting possible—so the possibility of Navarro joining the third stage of that meeting in person, via phone, or via video conference can’t be ignored.

But what is so telling about Byrne’s first detailed reference to this latter meeting is a moment between himself and Trump that he describes with some hesitation (noting that, in his view, one normally doesn’t speak about private conversations with a sitting president). What Byrne reveals is intended to put Donald Trump in a positive, if wildly implausible, light—as a man perfectly happy to accept defeat in a presidential election and abandon all claim to the greatest power and authority he’s ever known in his life—but what it in fact does is shed new light on Team Kraken’s original coup plot.

As Proof reported here, in his initial confession Byrne first implied that Team Kraken wanted to convince Trump that the 2020 presidential election had been attacked by a single nation—Iran—in a way that legitimized Trump seizing voting-machine data. But Proof also noted that, by the time Byrne was done with this first confession, it seemed that he was saying that a confederation of nations had attacked the 2020 vote, at least one of which (which we only know wasn’t Iran, China, or Russia, all of whom he named) he was unwilling to disclose. Despite insisting that President Trump was never presented, at any time on December 18, 2020, with Sidney Powell and Michael Flynn’s “Hammer and Scorecard” conspiracy theory—which alleged a confederation of nations, led by Venezuela, attacked the 2020 vote—Byrne’s description of what he believes was done on November 3, 2020 sure sounds a lot like that very conspiracy.

And it matters. Because Byrne seems intent on hiding the source of Team Kraken’s foreign intel—a supposed Venezuelan “defector” who it seems impossible for Team Kraken to have located without the help of Lindell’s and Trump’s good friends, the Bolsonaros of Brazil (Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro and his son Eduardo).

So there’s a lot at stake in whether Trump was convinced to try to stage a coup on the basis of a theory holding that a confederation of countries attacked America in 2020.

It’s with all this in mind that we turn again to the 25-minute “addendum” to Byrne’s first January 6 confession, in which addendum he recounts a brief conversation he had with Trump in a doorway in the then-president’s private residence during Meeting #3 on December 18, 2020. According to Byrne, Trump leaned close to him and emphasized that he couldn’t leave the White House on January if “nations” interfered with voting on November 3 of that year. Byrne is quite clear that Trump said “nations,” plural.

This is the best evidence we have so far (if still imperfect evidence) that Team Kraken did, in fact, present Trump with its “Hammer and Scorecard” conspiracy theory in the White House, and that it was just a matter of minutes after the meeting at which this conspiracy theory was shared with Trump that Trump announced he’d be attending domestic terrorist Ali Alexander’s January 6 “protest” in Washington—an event that was scheduled to coincide with the joint session of Congress Team Kraken intended to see postponed at all costs. It was also an event whose January 5 warm-up rally in Freedom Plaza featured Trump administration official Peter Navarro as a featured speaker.

With this new evidence, January 6 truly becomes an international scandal. If indeed it was false “intelligence” from a foreign national that directly led to the violent events of January 6, House investigators—and for that matter, the CIA—must find out which foreign national(s) worked with the sitting President of the United States and his top aides to end American democracy. Proof has already done a great deal of work to array the evidence we have on this score so far (see here, here, and here).

One final note about Byrne’s second January 6 confession: during its latter minutes, when Byrne is again speaking of his eagerness to testify before Congress, he actually raises his hand as if he’s about to testify under oath (and thus under penalty of perjury). With this in mind, it’s incumbent upon Congress to hold Byrne to this demonstrative gesture, as well as his words, and not only bring him in to testify; not only hold him to his promise to appear without a lawyer; not only hold him to his assurance that he will not invoke the Fifth Amendment at any point; but make sure he is placed under oath before testifying—and then refer him to the Department of Justice for prosecution if (as he appears to have done repeatedly in his taped confessions) he perjures himself.

Ten Major Revelations From the Recently Revealed (and Secretly Recorded) Patrick Byrne-Lin Wood Call

{Note: Proof does not endorse the screenshot used to promote the video above. This video is offered here purely for its substantive content, not its editorializing “Clown World” framing.}

The above link takes you to one of the wildest audio recordings you’ll ever hear. In it, Patrick Byrne—speaking to far-right South Carolina lawyer and Team Kraken hanger-on Lin Wood, who is secretly recording the conversation—accuses Sidney Powell of being “batshit” and says she is currently under criminal investigation (one that Byrne implies he is aiding) for a “scam” involving tens of millions of dollars being bilked from Trump supporters.

Byrne also tells Lin Wood that Powell’s religious faith is an act she uses to get money from evangelicals; accuses her of repeatedly getting drunk and making passes at him; and compares her unfavorably to Meryl Streep’s character in the film The Devil Wears Prada. He also recounts what he says are Powell’s outstanding allegations against him: for instance that he “poisoned” her and that he “date-raped” her. He contends that he hasn’t spoken to Powell since April 2021, and that he will never speak to her again.

Byrne’s litany of shocking revelations seems to go on and on. Sidney Powell, he says, routinely files motions in court that she hasn’t even read. He more than implies that she’s a criminal fraudster who may have secretly made up to $70 million (not a typo) via an apparent charitable organization—Defending the Republic—that Byrne alleges is secretly a for-profit company offers “stock options” currently held only by Powell.

So what does any of this have to do with the January 6 insurrection? Quite a lot, actually—if you think like a federal criminal investigator. Consider the following:

(1) What happens if Powell is federally charged for fraud? If Powell faces Tax Fraud, Wire Fraud, Bank Fraud, or other fraud charges—especially at a time when she may be under investigation for Election Fraud—it gives the FBI enormous leverage over her to get her to talk plainly about the insurrection and the events leading up to it.

Not only was Powell at the now-infamous December 18, 2020 Oval Office/presidential residence meeting where it now appears Trump’s coup plot was hatched, but she also (according to Byrne’s call with Wood) was fired from Trump’s legal team for making face-to-face contact with domestic terrorist Ali Alexander. She has had innumerable private conversations with people like Rudy Giuliani and Michael Flynn—discussions DOJ would surely like to know about. If Powell ends up being charged for criminal actions that post-date January 6, as Byrne implies she eventually will be, she could sign a cooperation deal with DOJ that would blow its insurrection probe wide open.

(2) What happens if the Powell-Byrne rift is never repaired? The news that Byrne no longer speaks to Powell—and Byrne’s implication that it’s possible Michael Flynn no longer speaks to her either, despite her having been his lawyer for an extended period—means that federal investigators (both congressional and criminal) may now have an easier time driving a wedge between the January 6 coup plotters than they previously imagined or hoped for. Indeed, the news that three people who were present in the White House during the formation of the January 6 coup plot are now at odds with one another in varying degrees and for varying reasons is absolutely terrifying news for Donald Trump. He likely would have presumed, in speaking to the leadership of Team Kraken on December 18, 2020, that he was speaking to a tight-knit group of loyalists who’d never betray him or one another. That no longer looks to be the case.

(3) How many more inculpatory Team Kraken recordings are out there? We now know that Lin Wood, who hosted most or all of Team Kraken at his sprawling South Carolina plantation in November of 2020, has been secretly recording calls with Team Kraken. We also now know that Patrick Byrne was filming a movie (with, presumably, as noted above, a great deal of “B-roll”) even as he was engaged in actions that could eventually be investigated as Seditious Conspiracy. We now know, through the Byrne-Wood call above, that Michael Flynn and his brother Joe Flynn fled Sidney Powell’s company in Florida because they believed she might be committing interstate crimes—a realization that would’ve given both men substantial cause to start memorializing their conversations with Powell and her actions respecting Defending the Republic.

The steady creation of as-yet-unseen audio, video, and documentary evidence by the members of Team Kraken is a dream come true for federal investigators, even if some of the content involved in these memorializations (for instance any sexual advances Powell may or may not have made upon Byrne, and any substances Byrne may or may not have given to her) is not only salacious but likely to be unfounded or exaggerated.

(4) Does more inculpatory evidence about Team Kraken’s schemes already exist than we realize? One of the biggest questions in America right now is whether DOJ is or is not seriously investigating the January 6 coup plotters. While Patrick Byrne and Lin Wood’s statements during the recorded call you can hear in full above are overheated and paranoid at times, they do establish one thing for certain: both men believe that their operations have been infiltrated by federal agents, and that these agents have a great deal of eyewitness testimony they intend to offer about what insurrectionists like Byrne and Wood have been up to.

Byrne and Wood agree that the Navy SEALs have federal informants among them who posed as bodyguards for Wood and others on Team Kraken. Whether or not this is true—and we can’t at present know whether it’s true or not—the possibility that it is true at least gives us some new insight into the sort of actions DOJ might be engaged in as part of its broader January 6 investigation (albeit it is still unlikely they have used such “movie-ready” methods of group infiltration).

So while my view tends to be that Byrne and Wood are overstating the likelihood of their operations being compromised—and overstating this by a considerable margin—the fact remains that DOJ does often rely on informants in complex criminal cases that involve otherwise hard-to-crack criminal enterprises. So as much as Byrne’s remark about SEALs remains hard to credit, neither can it be precipitously dismissed.

(5) The level of paranoia among the coup plotters is higher than we realized—and that’s all to the good. In the phone call above, Wood opines that Powell and Flynn won’t return his calls, despite him having hosted them at his plantation for at least two weeks during a critical coup-plotting period in mid- to late November 2020. As Wood doesn’t indicate that a conspicuous falling out with either Powell or Flynn predated them refusing to return his calls, the only conclusion we can draw at present is that the members of Team Kraken are avoiding being in touch with one another, perhaps in part for the very reason that Wood demonstrates in secretly recording Byrne: the perfidy of all of these individuals is such that they don’t trust one another, and don’t wish to create new evidence of their interactions and interrelationships.

Not only does this suggest that the coup plotters perceive themselves to be under some sort of federal investigation, it also neuters their ability to engage in high-level coup plotting again. It is only to America’s benefit that the number of individuals with the resources, connections and wherewithal to form a large-scale seditious conspiracy is comparatively small; if a potential hub of seditious activity has been overcome with paranoia and mutual distrust, it helps protect America from a redux of what happened on January 6, 2021.

(6) The coup plotters may have been discussing much more than just coup plotting during their many interactions—and it matters. During the call above, Wood reveals that he has had at least one discussion with Flynn about Flynn’s alleged involvement with Pegasus spyware (a topic addressed in some detail in the 2019 Macmillan book Proof of Conspiracy). Flynn’s ties to dodgy Israeli cyber-intelligence outfits has nothing to do with Trump’s efforts to steal the 2020 presidential election—but a great deal to do with Trump’s efforts to steal the 2016 presidential election. We’ve never before had any indication that the coup plotters discussed one another’s murky pasts; with the call above, we now know that men like Wood may know more that’s of great interest to federal investigators than we previously realized. “Something’s not right right now with Mike Flynn. I don’t know what it is. I’ve tried to talk to him”, opines Wood at one point. That Wood says this just seconds after noting that Flynn made $1 million off spyware in 2016 and then lied to him (Wood) about it underlines that there is now an opening for federal investigators to get much more than just information about the 2020 presidential election from men like the South Carolina attorney.

Wood also says that “I thought Jim Penrose was a fine Christian man. But Jim Penrose may not be who he purported to be.” This is significant given Jim Penrose’s role as one of the key “intelligence” experts inside Team Kraken (a perhaps surprising distinction, in view of the fact that major media has paid almost no attention to him thus far). Byrne and Wood also agree that they have both heard that “Jovan Pulitzer is not a legitimate guy”—a significant point of concord given that Pulitzer, like Penrose, is deemed one of the most trusted figures in Trump’s “election integrity” movement.

(7) This call provides insights into the character of certain public figures that we might not have gotten otherwise. At one point Lin Wood and Patrick Byrne discuss Kyle Rittenhouse, the 2021-acquitted defendant who Wood briefly represented in a defamation suit Rittenhouse contemplated following his arrest for multiple homicides in Kenosha, Wisconsin. While it’s common practice among lawyers to avoid speaking ill of their clients—as they could not only be violating attorney-client privilege in doing so, but could also be creating new legal problems for clients that only they (as a person with special access to such individuals) could create—in the call above Wood repeatedly calls out Rittenhouse as a liar, alleging that Rittenhouse deliberately lied about him on national television (Fox News). While it is certainly not the business or interest of Proof to mediate in a dispute like this one, certainly candid—if ill-advised and unethical—diatribes like Lin Wood’s give us access to another view of people like Kyle Rittenhouse as well as his legal team, not to mention (as already noted) Trump lawyers like Sidney Powell or Trump’s first National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn.

In this respect, the paranoia and perfidy of those with whom Trump has surrounded himself ultimately must out in the public square. Beyond being mildly entertaining, it is robustly probative.

(8) This phone call demands an urgent revistation of prior statements by key figures relating to the 2020 election. In his lengthy confession, Patrick Byrne said that his audience would be amazed at how little he ever had to do with the fraudulent “audit” his friend Doug Logan ran in Maricopa County, Arizona. But to Wood, Byrne admits that he and Michael Flynn contributed at least five million dollars—not a typo—to the effort. Just so, OANN “reporter” Christina Bobb, a member of the Willard Hotel war room who appears (the Daily Beast recently reported) to have created at least one key pre-January 6 coup memo, has at times been cagey about the work she did (despite allegedly being a reporter) to raise money for Logan’s “audit.”

During the Byrne-Wood call, Wood speaks candidly about Bobb reaching out to him to ask for $150,000 for the audit. This suggests that, at a minimum, Wood can speak to actions surrounding the 2020 election by a much wider cast of characters than we previously would have expected. In the case of Bobb this is particularly significant, as her precise role in the coup plot as an ex-employee of the Department of Homeland Security has up to now been shrouded in mystery.

Just so, Byrne confirms to Wood that he has had direct contact with insurrectionist GOP state rep Wendy Rogers of Arizona, another individual whose role in the coup plot remains unclear. What Byrne says about Rogers is shocking: he claims that he was told by Rogers that she “instructed” Doug Logan’s Cyber Ninjas outfit on how its final report should read, a degree of clandestine tampering in what was supposed to be an independent post-election report that confirms that—as its critics always said—it was entirely a sham. Indeed, Byrne’s words here may potentially justify the opening of an election fraud investigation into Rogers. That Byrne said he had “lunch” with a group of “senior [GOP] senators” in Arizona not only confirms that he had far more involvement in the Arizona audit than he’s now saying publicly but also that he is a key witness in any future Election Fraud investigation into Logan, Rogers, and other Arizona state representatives who are also known insurrectionists, like Oath Keeper and Stop the Steal leader (as well as Ali Alexander mentor) Mark Finchem.

(9) The call offers some major bombshells with implications for America’s future.

Wood, who has had numerous contacts with Flynn’s inner circle, says to Byrne that “he knows that he [Flynn] has been planting questions about whether he’s going to run for Vice President [with Trump in 2024]”, and then adds that the nature of the rumors he is hearing prompts him to want to know—from Byrne—“Is Mike Flynn running for president in 2024?”

As Proof has previously reported, Roger Stone has been behind an effort to recruit Flynn to run for POTUS in 2024 if Trump does not. Wood’s statements to Byrne underscore that this effort may be spoken of far more widely in the insurrectionist “community” than is currently realized by major media. “It looks to me”, Wood tells Byrne at one point, “that Mike [Flynn] is not fighting to fix [the] 2020 [election], Mike is looking for his own agenda to potentially run for office [the White House] in 2024” (emphasis in original).

It is shocking to think that major media has thus far focused almost exclusively on more “mainstream” alternatives to a 2024 Trump presidential run—like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL), and former Vice President Mike Pence (R-IN)—when in actuality, within the increasingly seditious MAGA “movement” (which at this point in time has an ironclad grip on the Republican Party), the leading candidate for President of the United States might be one of the most dangerous men in modern American politics: Michael Flynn. This Byrne-Wood call alone should be enough to get media asking serious questions about Flynn’s political ambitions—remembering, here, that Flynn was already rumored to be one of Trump’s top early VP picks in 2016.

(10) Statements made during the above call could presage the collapse of the GOP. A potential Flynn 2024 presidential run isn’t merely an academic matter, nor is it even merely a national security matter—though Flynn’s foreign entanglements are terrifying for those of us who’ve written at length on his professional dealings and geopolitical liaisons. It is also an internal crisis for the Republican Party. In this respect, Wood’s comments on Flynn are profoundly telling: “We [Republicans] cannot continue to vote in rigged elections….Mike was suggesting we could vote our way out of a rigged election system. That’s arrant nonsense! Mike wanted everyone to look forward [to a presidential race he might run in in 2024]—and stay in a rigged system—when he should have been saying what everybody knew, [that Glenn] Youngkin [a Republican who recently won the gubernatorial race in Virginia]….is a RINO Republican [a ‘Republican in Name Only’] or a communist—I don’t know—but he [Youngkin] is not a patriot….I think he’s a liar. I think he [Youngkin] is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.”

Given that Wood earlier tells Byrne that U.S. elections are now nothing more than “a communist effort to take over our presidency”, what he is underlining with these remarks is an ongoing debate in the Republican Party: should GOP voters continue to vote? Wood avers that any avowed MAGA-movement champion who runs for elected office in the future will face accusations—in Wood’s view, well-warranted ones—that they’re supporting a clandestine communist takeover of the United States. Needless to say, if Wood’s rhetoric wins out over Flynn’s ambitions, it will be impossible for the GOP to consistently win elections in the U.S. at almost any level of government.

{Note: There are also certain statements in the Byrne-Wood call I don’t know what to do with yet, for instance Wood’s claim that “Joe Posobiec”—he seems to be referring to Jack Posobiec—used to “work under” and “serve under” Michael Flynn. Posobiec was posing as an OANN “reporter” on January 6, as was Christina Bobb, despite both of them being involved with the insurrection effort (Posobiec with Ali Alexander, Bobb with Trump’s legal team). Having not yet done a deep dive on Posobiec, and knowing only that he used to work in military intelligence, I can’t say whether he has the associations with Flynn that Wood claims. But the Byrne-Wood call is a goldmine of such leads, and as such deserves to be carefully listened to.}

Conclusion

It certainly now appears that there were multiple connected coup plots before, during, and after January 6—and that some video evidence of these plots exists. It also appears that there’s a sufficient schism, now, within the insurrectionist camp, and that enough inculpatory public confessions have been made by leading members of this camp, that the House January 6 Committee can quickly sweep in to demand, with a subpoena for documents and another for testimony, that two key individuals produce for Congress everything they know: ex-CEO Patrick Byrne and Colorado militant Joe Oltmann.

What’s more, these two men have already been caught in sufficient lies and other self-contradictions that they will begin their testimony before Congress profoundly and irrevocably wrong-footed—forced to either invoke their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination (which one of them has pledged publicly not to do), or else admit that they have been hiding their Insurrection Week actions for over a year now.

And Congress will be well-positioned to figure out why those lies were told, and what they were intended to conceal.

Stupidity is often what brings down bad actors. I learned this during my many years as a state public defender. But sometimes it’s vanity, instead. Byrne and Oltmann are so loudly self-righteous about their supposedly noble efforts to end U.S. democracy that they have provided federal investigators—both in Congress and the FBI—with a trail of evidence that cannot be ignored. And only some of that evidence is testimonial; some portion of it clearly exists in multimedia formats, whether it be prior statements made by Oltmann on his too-candid-by-half Conservative Daily Podcast or Byrne’s now multiple public confessions about what he was doing before and during and after January 6. Or we could look at Oltmann’s Facebook videos—previously reported on by Proof here and here—or what apparently is a whole film Byrne made on his dubiously legal conduct. All this must be seized by investigators before any of it is destroyed or otherwise compromised.

But Congress must also exploit the new divisions that have appeared within the coup plotters’ ranks.

At one point in the conversation of his with Patrick Byrne that he secretly recorded, Linn Wood actually advises Byrne to go to federal authorities and drop a dime on his fellow coup plotter Sidney Powell (albeit for financial crimes, not political ones). The consequences this would have for the January 6 investigation would have been fully unmistakable to Byrne in that moment, and yet he agreed with Wood that he would probably need to turn Powell in to the authorities—partly (perhaps even in major part) to save his own skin. Congress and the FBI can now leverage the same sort of cynical reasoning to question Byrne and Wood with respect to their actions on and around January 6, or even to cut a deal with Powell on some of her alleged financial crimes if she will reveal in full what she said to Donald Trump (and what he said to her in response) on December 18, 2020 and other key dates in the insurrection timeline.

It has been far too easy, for some time now, for members of Congress and federal law enforcement officers to dismiss people like Lindell, Oltmann, Byrne, Powell, Flynn as cranks, lunatics, or some combination of the two. What sort of person would conspire with these incompetent radicals, one might ask? The answer: Donald Trump. Donald Trump would, and apparently did, conspire with these people. That most Americans of sense would never partner up with them, or even (and here I speak from experience) communicate with them if they reached out, is immaterial. Sometimes alleged wrong-doers are every bit as stupid as those aiming to chase them down hope they will be, and that’s all to the good (unless you’re currently working as a state public defender).

That the January 6 coup plotters failed saved our nation. That the plotters are, in many instances, embarrassingly unsophisticated must be exploited to ensure the investigation of their coup plot doesn’t meet the same fate the plot itself did.

{Note: It’s neither the role nor intent of Proof or its author to allege with certainty violations of federal criminal statutes by particular individuals. While this article, and other articles at Proof, note possible statutory violations worthy of additional investigation, a final judgment on whether federal criminal offenses have occurred—and if any such crimes were committed by persons discussed here—can only be made by prosecutors at the Department of Justice.}

Introduction

Donald Trump adviser and ex-Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne has just inadvertently admitted knowledge of an illicit January 6 coup plot in a bizarre—and videotaped—confession.

For this entry in the “Coming Collapse” series, we’ll jump almost immediately into what we just learned—as it’s voluminous, confusing, and critical to America’s future.

A Very Brief Prelude to A Historic Post-Insurrection Confession

The one Patrick Byrne video that everyone must be aware of before reading his just-released confession is this one from February 3, 2022, in which Byrne speaks briefly about a man Proof exclusively revealed as a key member of Donald Trump’s Willard Hotel “war room” on Insurrection Eve in 2021: Joe Oltmann. In the video, Byrne, an associate of Oltmann in private meetings about Trump’s Big Lie, says the following about the man (who has threatened to sue this author for publishing Oltmann’s own words in this publication):

Every time I’ve seen Joe Oltmann in the last six months [the latter half of 2021], when we’re together sitting at the table…he will find the first opportunity he can in the conversation to lean over [to me] and say, “What I want to know, Patrick, is when are we going to say we’ve had enough? When are we taking to the streets?” [And I say to him], “What do you mean, ‘When are we taking it to the streets?’” [And Oltmann says], “[I mean] when are the bullets going to start flying? When are we going to get—when are we going to do what has to [be done]?”

Every single time, I shut the guy off in his track {sic} [and] I chew him out. I say, “Don’t even think that way, blah blah blah.” But I’m just telling you, there’s not a conversation that guy’s been around [about the 2020 election]—in six months I’ve seen, or nine months—that he [Joe Oltmann] is not looking for the opportunity to try to draw people into [something like], “So, what I want to know is when are we going to talk about how we’re going to do what needs to be done? We really have to take care of business [by force]. When are the bullets going to start flying?”

Joe Oltmann: every conversation that guy’s ever in, that is what he’s trying to get people to talk about.

This statement by Byrne, covering—given his self-correction as to date range, above—at least the period from April 2021 through January 2022, is vital to understanding all that follows because, as Proof has reported, Oltmann was invited inside Trump’s inner circle in the lead-up to January 6, 2021. So too were other known militants, such as Robert Patrick Lewis of the 1st Amendment Praetorian paramilitary and violent, unstable ex-Pentagon assets like Phil Waldron (who Proof wrote about in detail in April of last year). Michael Flynn, the ex-con and ex-soldier who called for a coup of Joe Biden’s administration in Dallas last year, wasn’t peripheral to the plot that Byrne details below but central to it—and as readers of this article will ultimately learn in more detail, is the man a cadre of Flynn co-conspirators, including Byrne, now hope will pick up the pieces of the failed January 6 coup and make another go of it soon.

So some of the plotting Byrne describes in the confession linked to below occurred in the presence of, and with the aid of, men who were quite open in their belief that not overturning the 2020 presidential election would—and should—lead to a Second Civil War. Therefore, the supposed naiveté about both consequences and the nature of his compatriots that Byrne repeatedly floats below ought not be credited. If Byrne himself was forced to spend Insurrection Eve and Insurrection Day preaching non-violence in impromptu interviews (which this author can attest he was, having watched several interviews with him from that span of time) it is in part due to the fact that he, and more importantly Trump and his legal team, chose to consort with a small group of ex-soldiers and intelligence operatives whose means of addressing political complaints is violence or covert disinformation operations. Neither Byrne nor his co-conspirators can disassociate themselves from such militants now.

The Ten Revelations in Byrne’s 85-Minute Confession

(1) Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, and Michael Flynn were engaged in a covert attempt to swing the 2020 election to Trump by using an illegally acquired computer allegedly owned by Hunter Biden to claim—falsely—that there was some sort of collusion between the Bidens and China.

Rudy Giuliani and Flynn tried this same tactic as an “October surprise” in October of 2016, except that that time the laptop at issue belonged to Democratic congressman Anthony Weiner, and the crime alleged by Giuliani and Flynn and co-conspirator Erik Prince against the then-Democratic presidential candidate wasn’t Bribery but Child Trafficking and several other unstated (and equally illusory) offenses. Having succeeded in extorting then-FBI director James Comey into reopening the Hillary Clinton email case in 2016—which cost Clinton the election—and having faced no consequences for their conduct, it’s unsurprising that Giuliani and Flynn, this time with the aid of a new Trump adviser in place of Prince (Trump lawyer Sidney Powell) would again try to use manufactured evidence of profoundly problematic provenance to install Donald Trump in the White House.

As we saw during the Trump-Ukraine scandal, during which Giuliani used “clients” of his (notably, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman) to commit crimes, on the theory that it is easier to keep a crime under wraps if you enjoy attorney-client privilege with your co-conspirators, Byrne begins his confession by admitting that Giuliani sought the aid of a “client” from Queens in doing something other than quickly turning over an illegally acquired laptop to federal law enforcement.

That Giuliani knew he was engaged in illicit conduct by holding on to the ill-gotten laptop appears to be confirmed by Byrne’s acknowledgment that when Giuliani convened a cadre of Trump supporters to break into this illegally acquired computer, he brought his own personal attorney with him as a witness. (I will note, as a former criminal defense attorney myself, that Giuliani’s lawyer is by no means exempt from criminal investigation because it was a client who invited him to the scene of a crime.)

As Giuliani, Powell, and Flynn were plotting a 2016 “October Surprise” redux using the alleged Hunter Biden laptop, Byrne says that Powell was obsessed with “getting to” Donald Trump (presumably through his then-attorney, Giuliani); this obsession echoes the January 2016 obsession future Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort had with “getting to” Trump—his words—to advance his own schemes and ambitions.

Byrne implies that, like Manafort’s, Powell’s efforts were successful, inasmuch as he says that in very short order Powell’s ambition changed from simply meeting with Mr. Trump to wanting to “be next to him on November 3 [Election Day]”—the biggest day of his political life, given that if he lost the election and the White House he knew (as did the criminal defense attorney Powell, best known for representing Flynn) that as an ex-president he would be newly open to criminal investigations for which he’d quickly need exhaustive, aggressive, and expensive criminal-defense representation.

It is therefore, in view of this eyewitness account from Byrne, impossible to imagine that Trump did not know, prior to the November 2020 election, that his attorneys had illegally acquired a laptop owned by the son of his political rival. There’s no evidence that Team Trump quickly returned the laptop or surrendered it to law enforcement, but the “belief” (whether pretextual or earnest) Trump and his allies developed during this period that the Biden family had been secretly colluding with the Chinese would reappear in mid-December as part of fantastical theories about foreign interference in the presidential election—all of which turned out to be not just false, but dangerous.

Byrne at first indicates that Flynn did not know Giuliani had sought his and Powell’s help with the Hunter Biden laptop scheme. However, Byrne also—rather improbably—suggests that Powell hid this obscenely valuable political intelligence from her former Defense Intelligence Agency chief client even as he was traveling regularly to D.C. to see her. This claim does not comport with what we know about Michael Flynn’s past, his relationship with Powell, or his public statements regarding the Bidens and China.

(2) This failed “October Surprise” plot gave rise to the coup attempt that began several weeks later.

Prior to the election—during the period of time that Patrick Byrne reached out to this author through an intermediary, claiming he had urgent intel to impart (a request for a conversation this author ignored)—Byrne was apparently so invested in the Hunter Biden laptop scheme that he rented a “block of suites” in Trump International Hotel.

Byrne says that he did so without Trump’s knowledge, though how and when Trump is informed about internationally known businessmen renting a block of suites for an indefinite period in his Washington hotel is a process wholly invisible to Byrne. Byrne also claims he chose Trump International Hotel solely because it was “the hotel most likely to be attacked”—he doesn’t say by whom—and therefore the one he felt would have the best security. Byrne’s insistence that Trump never knew or learned about his Trump International war room, even as he concedes that there were “a lot of people coming and going” from his suites in the hotel for a “couple months”, including some Trump lawyers, is bizarre. Indeed, it is the sort of activity one would expect Trump to eventually hear about given that, besides his own lawyers, one of the people who was coming and going from his hotel was his controversial first National Security Advisor.

According to Byrne, the Hunter Biden laptop scheme gave Powell an excuse to (a) be in Washington long-term, (b) get close to Trump’s inner circle, and (c) become a key member of that inner circle in the weeks following Trump’s landslide election loss.

Byrne now says that Powell was so enamored with her position in Trump’s orbit and her newly won access to national political media that “over the river in Alexandria and Arlington [Virginia]”, the “same sort of thing started happening” that already had happened in Trump International: the creation of a series of connected war rooms paid for by Trump’s allies, advisers, associates, agents, attorneys, and/or aides. “There was a Westin Hotel”, Byrne helpfully explains—referring, it would appear, to either the Westin Arlington Gateway or the Westin Crystal City—where Giuliani’s laptop-analyzing “client” suddenly chose to decamp by renting a block of suites that were quickly transformed into long-term shared office space for “Sidney Powell and her team” and unnamed others.

Note here that there was no reason for a client of Giuliani to expend such resources to house Giuliani and Powell—as opposed to these two Trump lawyers being paid by the Trump campaign or even Trump himself for their legal services—unless either (a) the intent of the Giuliani client’s payments was to hide the war rooms (and their funding) by having them be paid for by someone who could claim on later tax documents that he was simply billing his lawyer (Giuliani) for services rendered (and indeed, Giuliani has been known to accept significant in-kind payments, and to allow others to pay him for work he’s actually doing for Trump; see the Trump-Ukraine scandal for more), and/or (b) the aim was to make in-kind contributions to the 2020 Trump presidential campaign that could plausibly escape the notice of the FEC (though it might require the commission of several federal crimes to ensure that it would be so). In either case, the arrangement Byrne describes is ethically dubious and warrants more investigation by federal authorities.

{Note: It appears that Rudy Giuliani also traveled to Virginia on occasion, despite his own haunt being the Mandarin Oriental Hotel in Washington during the immediate post-election period. As the New York Times has reported, “Byrne told [the Times] that he and Flynn’s attorney, Sidney Powell, met with Trump’s legal adviser Rudy Giuliani in Arlington, Virginia, shortly after the election to offer their assistance.” Why Giuliani chose to hold any key meetings outside of D.C. and—as it happens—in the shadow of the Pentagon is unclear.}

What is clear that the Westin-based operations in Virginia went beyond just a dubious means for President Trump to get legal services—and maybe some in-kind campaign contributions—under the radar of federal agencies. As Byrne says (emphasis supplied):

[Rudy’s client] showed up [in Washington], and he’s a business guy, [so] he did the same thing [I’d done at Trump International]: he rented a block of rooms [and] he created office spaces for some people to be working together. He created rooms for Sidney Powell and some of her people.

[But] there was another group on a different floor [of the same Westin Hotel].

On a different floor [was]…the Amistad Project, or a different project, [and] there was even another group that was a group of retired federal prosecutors, somewhere [in the Arlington/Alexandria area of Virginia] on the other side of the river [from Washington].

And they called.

So there were these different camps—at least three camps—scattered on the Virginia side of the river, well two [at the Westin] and one [elsewhere in the area], and then there was what I was doing with these [cyber-intelligence analysts] in a block of rooms at the Trump [International Hotel]. So that’s the layout [in the two months after the election].

So in that context, Sidney Powell was over there with…she got mixed up very quickly with Rudy and all of this. I’m talking about November 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th. Somewhere in there General Flynn is coming in [to Powell’s new offices at the Westin]…

Regular readers of Proof will know it was the Amistad Project that created the pretext for Trump’s now-infamous January 2, 2021 conference call, which call included several groups of people:

• Several hundred Republican state legislators (Oath Keeper member, Stop the Steal leader, and Ali Alexander mentor Mark Finchem believed to be among them);

• presidential adviser Peter Navarro, who was just subpoenaed by the House January 6 Committee);

• the leadership of the Amistad Project, including former Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline, who now stands accused of “le[ading] the effort to promote fake Trump electors in 2020”; and possibly

• other members of Stop the Steal’s leadership cadre (as it is known that Stop the Steal leadership was represented on the call, but it remains unclear if this is a reference to Finchem, who was also present as a state GOP representative from Arizona—as would have been another insurrectionist Oath Keeper, Wendy Rogers, who is likewise a state GOP representative from Arizona).

One purpose of this call appears to have been for Trump to get grassroots organizers like Finchem—who would shortly be co-leading a march on the U.S. Capitol—on the same page as the GOP state legislators Trump needed to somehow “decertify” Biden’s electors in six battleground states if he could buy them seven to ten days via January 6 machinations. These machinations depended on two groups: the domestic terrorists of the Stop the Steal “movement”, chief among them Finchem’s mentee Ali Alexander, and a separate group of people who Team Trump would address en masse on January 4 at Trump International Hotel: Republican members of the United States Senate and House of Representatives.

The reason the two groups whose aid Trump most needed on January 6 were the Stop the Steal foot-soldiers and members of both houses of Congress—in other words, the reason this list does not include the several hundred GOP state legislators who Trump addressed on January 2—is because this latter group could only be of utility to Trump if the January 6 joint session were pushed by not just a day or two but at least a week.

A week-long—or even longer—postponement of the statutorily mandated January 6 joint session of Congress could only be accomplished by a combination of two forces: (1) Republican members of Congress from both houses standing in unison to demand two hours of statutorily required congressional debate on their joint objections to ten states contested during the 2020 presidential election (in fact, Team Trump only had pseudo-coherent complaints about six states, but on January 6 Giuliani and Trump chose, in mid-riot, to expand this roster to “ten” to ensure a greater delay in the joint session), and (2) the previously publicly declared “Operation Occupy the Capitol” coup plot schemed up by Trump’s three Stop the Steal allies—Roger Stone, Alex Jones, and the aforementioned Alexander—which plot Trump had, by January 2, repeatedly endorsed in the public square. This combination of disruptive, longer-term protests inside the chambers of Congress and in public areas across the Capitol grounds was required for Trump to get the seven- to ten-day delay of the congressional joint session he needed.

Preceding Trump’s Amistad Project–orchestrated January 2 conference call (recalling that the Amistad Project comprised one of the Trumpist “camps” in the Westin Hotel in Virginia) were weeks and weeks during which, Byrne says, the Westin camps were getting calls from pro-Trump local officials warning of election “mischief.” It is not clear how or why local elections officials would have known that a Giuliani client had just paid an enormous sum of money to create ad hoc law offices for Donald Trump’s legal team at a Westin hotel in Virginia. That Byrne insists they did indeed know this suggests that Powell and other members of what would come to be known as “Team Kraken” quickly began putting out feelers to pro-Trump government employees nationwide, hunting for evidence of something that they were publicly claiming had happened without yet having any evidence that it did: a “stolen” presidential election.

Byrne explains that the link between the Westin operation(s) in Virginia and his own at Trump International Hotel was that of an intelligence pipeline: Trump’s lawyers in Virginia (whether Victoria Toensing and Joe diGenova were among them is unclear, though it is certain that they were public members of Team Kraken) were tasked with feeding to Byrne’s small army of intelligence experts at Trump International Hotel any intelligence they received from pro-Trump officials around the country (here, too, we cannot yet know whether Ginni Thomas’s Groundswell group participated in this act of intelligence-gathering and interlocution—the specialties that group was known for—even as many of its past allies and participants would keep showing up as essential intelligence sources for Team Trump’s Westin and Trump International Hotel offices).

Were the pro-Trump local officials who passed intelligence to the Westin and Trump International Hotel lawyers and intelligence operatives legally entitled to pass on the sensitive election data they shared? We don’t know—though Byrne now claims his team wouldn’t have looked at intelligence they weren’t entitled to look at. Whether this vague gesture toward “due diligence” amounted to more than just ensuring that any intelligence they received came from a bona fide elections official remains unclear.

There is evidence, however, that Byrne’s team may have done even less due diligence than just described.

In his confession, Byrne says that he and his team would only look at intelligence that had been “approved”, but “what that meant” (per Byrne) was that he and his team had “thought” that Giuliani and the rest of Trump’s legal team would be leaning on local elections officials to let Byrne and his team look inside voting machines all across the country, suggesting that whenever any such permission was granted—howsoever it was obtained—Byrne and his team of intelligence experts quickly sprung into action.

Was it legal for the lawyer of one of the two 2020 presidential candidates—Giuliani—under the presumed color of being an agent of the President of the United States, to lean on government employees around the country to get them to agree to let private experts and a former CEO poke around in public voting machines? Experts in election law would have to weigh in on this, but it certainly isn’t the sort of post-election audit of ballots that any intelligence expert concerned about professional ethics would want to be involved in, let alone a private citizen (with no intelligence training) like Byrne.

Byrne confesses that his experts were concerned—and expressed their concerns to him directly—that the president’s agents, including Giuliani, would receive election data to which Trump and his lawyers were not entitled: that is to say, stolen election data it would be illegal to possess. That Byrne’s experts had and voiced this concern, and that they were relying on the integrity and lawfulness of a completely separate “camp” across the river in Virginia to ensure that they weren’t participating in a criminal conspiracy, is stunning in its own right. But given that Giuliani had infamously just been involved in not one but two major conspiracies to tamper with a presidential election—one in 2016, involving the Weiner laptop, and another in 2020, involving pro-Kremlin Ukrainians and eventually the “Hunter Biden laptop”—it’s incomprehensible that anyone would trust Giuliani to act with integrity with regard to a federal election, let alone when he was being paid (by someone, if not Trump) to represent Mr. Trump’s legal and political interests.

According to Byrne, his intelligence experts even expressed to him their fears about “going to jail”—confirming that they understood just how close to the line even their presence at Trump International Hotel had caused them to get.

It turns out that they were right to be concerned.

Patrick Byrne confesses that Phil Waldron—apparently with support from Trump lawyer Sidney Powell—did suggest that election data be acquired via federal felonies, which Byrne euphemistically refers to in his confession as a “black ops” plot. So was Waldron quickly separated from Team Trump upon proposing a criminal conspiracy?

No.

In fact, the opposite occurred.

Waldron was thereafter invited to Trump’s Insurrection Eve war room at Trump International Hotel, and was even tapped by Team Trump to make an (ultimately failed) bid to run a recount in the State of New Hampshire. And of course Byrne himself continued to work with Waldron despite the latter having put a criminal conspiracy on the table, even calling Waldron—in his 85-minute confession—a “wonderful man” whom he “love[s].”

Byrne confesses that Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani didn’t issue a final judgment on Waldron’s criminal conspiracy scheme immediately. Rather, he brought in a former NYPD police commissioner (and ex-convict) named Bernie Kerik to get a second opinion. So why didn’t Giuliani ask his own lawyer for advice, given that we know from Byrne that Giuliani had the man close to hand as he was trying to overturn the 2020 election? One might guess—or, rather, I as a former criminal defense attorney might guess—why a man who has repeatedly been under criminal investigation over the last five years (Giuliani) and been suspended from practicing law in his home state would rather seek strategic counsel from a known criminal than a respected attorney.

But to be clear, Waldron didn’t just raise the possibility of a criminal conspiracy once.

Byrne confesses that Team Trump stalwart Waldron was discussing illicit “black ops” so frequently that it was clearly “too much” and Byrne (he says) had to dress him down for it. So apparently Powell’s encouragement, Giuliani’s slow rejection of the idea, and Byrne’s own continued fidelity to Phil Waldron somehow didn’t dissuade the man from continuing to aggressively push for Team Trump to commit crimes.

{Note: The Oath Keeper HQ in the run-up to the insurrection—and the location of their so-called Quick Reaction Force armory—was in Virginia, apparently at the Comfort Inn Ballston, according to court documents. That hotel is approximately a half a mile from the Westin Gateway, which is worth noting given that two of the key allies of the Westin camps were the aforementioned Oath Keepers Mark Finchem and Wendy Rogers. We do not yet know whether any of the Trump war rooms in Virginia had contact with the armed militants’ war room just a stone’s throw away, but we do know this: militants ended up inside Giuliani’s Willard Hotel war room once he’d moved to that hotel from the Mandarin Oriental Hotel in Washington and the Westin in Virginia—among them Robert Patrick Lewis, Joe Oltmann, and Philip Luelsdorf—and for years there’d been regular live-on-television contact between the head of the Oath Keepers, Stewart Rhodes, and Alex Jones, the very Stop the Steal leader Trump asked to lead the march on the Capitol during the weekend of January 2. That was the weekend he spoke to Stop the Steal leaders in a call set by the Westin-based Amistad Project.}

(3) After six weeks of the intelligence pipeline described above, Biden’s landslide victory was certified by fifty states and D.C. in mid-December 2020, an event that caused a splintering within Team Trump.

According to Byrne, this post-certification splintering divided the Trumpist coup effort into three separate but parallel efforts:

1. The Bureaucratic Plot: Per Byrne, Powell told him that Giuliani had given up on Trump’s campaign and wanted to just file some pro forma court motions he knew would lose before calling it a day. This uninspired and purely gestural scheme was dubbed by Byrne a “bureaucratic” strategy.

2. The Digital Plot: Per Byrne, he and Powell remained focused on gaining access in some fashion to election data and (via imaging) voting machines and election servers. From November 3 through mid-December, this data had apparently been flowing through Giuliani’s camp—as presumably he was more persuasive in getting such data from local officials, as an attorney for the sitting president implicitly or explicitly using the power of the Oval Office to command respect and compliance—so we can presume from Powell’s description of Giuliani’s strategy (see above) that she felt Giuliani had begun to do too little to act as an intelligence pipeline once Biden’s November election victory was certified in mid-December. Byrne emphasizes the “digital” nature of Powell’s evidentiary interests.

3. The Political Plot: Per Byrne, at the time Peter Navarro—and, we would later learn, Trump attorney John Eastman—was working on the “Green Bay Sweep”, in simpler terms a self-coup-by-fiat (when the results of a democratic election are overturned because the losing party has a majority in a sufficient number of legislatures to block and overrule the democratically acquired final vote tallies).

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Powell’s description of Giuliani’s activities was misleading—and in fact Giuliani’s “bureaucratic” plot, Byrne says he soon discovered, was aimed at dovetailing with Navarro and Eastman’s political coup. According to Byrne, it turned out that Giuliani’s plan was to “dig up enough” doubt about the election results that it would stiffen the backs of the federal and state GOP politicians who would be asked by Trump (as indeed they were on January 2) to overturn the results of a democratic election in which not a single court in the United States had found any systemic fraud.

Byrne at one point slips and seems to inadvertently admit that Peter Navarro and John Eastman’s plan was a coup plot contrary to conventional democratic norms (e.g., the Supreme Court-set precedent of “one person, one vote”): he says that under the Green Bay Sweep plot “the state legislatures [would] look at all the facts…and then they make their decision [about who should be POTUS]….it’s still a democratic process, it’s the People deciding—{NB: he corrects himself}—it’s the elected officials deciding…”

At approximately the same point in his confession, Byrne makes a second admission that may be even more significant, saying, “What I knew by November 10th [2020]…[is that] these elections [in November 2020] were so hopelessly compromised that there’s no way to know who won. There’s no way to know who won….I knew by November 10th that this [the 2020 election] was an egg that could not be unscrambled, and there was no way to ‘Encyclopedia Brown’ your way down to the bottom of it [to] really figure anything out [about who won] and get to it [an answer to that question].” (Emphasis added.)

This admission is significant because when Byrne made his way to the Oval Office 38 days after his big realization—see below for more—he did not tell Donald Trump that “there’s no way to know who won” the 2020 election, or that the final results were “an egg that could not be unscrambled.” Rather, he admits that what he said to Trump, verbatim, was “Put us in, Coach…we [me, Sidney Powell, and Michael Flynn] will win this [election for you]. We’ll win this.”

There can be no clearer confession that Byrne intended on achieving a specific result for Trump—a “win”—he knew by November 10, 2020 may have been the wrong result.

(4) It was during this “splinter” period that Patrick Byrne, Michael Flynn, and Sidney Powell—the so-called “digital” team—used a top Peter Navarro aide, Garrett Zeigler, to get an audience with Trump that they had not scheduled in advance.

The revelation that Navarro’s camp was responsible for getting Team Kraken into the Oval Office comes from this recent New York Times report.

At the “raucous”, Axios-reported December 18, 2020 Oval Office meeting, Giuliani (who was at that point not on the same page as Powell or the rest of the “digital” team, per Byrne) was brought into the conversation only after-the-fact—as the Byrne-led plot to get to Donald Trump deliberately left him out of the loop. This, in itself, is telling.

Byrne has already confessed that Giuliani was the one who shut down the “black ops” plan “presented” to him by Phil Waldron and Sidney Powell, which plan Byrne had clearly not objected to in advance because (a) he was briefed on the failed presentation immediately after it was concluded and was apparently not at all surprised that the presentation had occurred or what its contents were, and (b) he confesses that “at the time” he didn’t really understand his own team’s unwillingness to participate in such “black ops”—a federal criminal conspiracy—which unwillingness he now says his intelligence experts explained to him but for some reason he could not comprehend.

{Note: The very fact that Byrne concedes he could not comprehend his team’s unwillingness to follow Waldron and Powell’s plan confirms that he at some point was advocating for conduct on their part that they had to explain—repeatedly—was unacceptable and perhaps illegal.}

So for Byrne to decide, shortly after the failed Powell-Waldron presentation, (a) that he, Powell, and Waldron’s former Defense Intelligence Agency boss Michael Flynn needed to get to President Trump immediately; (b) that Giuliani could not be told of this meeting; and (c) that some portion of the meeting should be held—for unknown reasons—in the president’s private residence in the White House rather than the Oval Office, and outside the presence of Trump’s White House Counsel rather than with him present, certainly leaves the impression that Powell and the Waldron-connected Flynn wanted a second crack at pitching “black ops” to the president rather than merely the “political” plot they by then understood Navarro had drafted (the “Green Bay Sweep”).

The example Byrne gives of “digging up enough” doubt about the 2020 election that it would give GOP state legislators cover for taking voting for president out of the hands of voters—the Green Bay Sweep, of which Byrne says that, by the end of November, he had come to believe it was the “best” option for Trump—is “the hearings in Maricopa County [Arizona].” Byrne believed a public spectacle on the order of a televised audit in Maricopa, even though he’d already decided it had no chance of determining who’d won, would be enough to put pressure on GOP legislators to give the election to Trump.

In other words, the truth didn’t matter to Byrne and his compatriots. Rather, all that Donald Trump needed was someone who could go to Arizona and create a spectacle, or—failing that, as a spectacle-forward recount could take some months to execute—any person who would promise to go to Arizona and speculate publicly about mischief in the vote count there, and be willing to so speculate in a way compelling enough for GOP legislators to hand Trump the election even before any Arizona “audit” had finished.

Fortunately, Team Kraken already had the man for the job.

CNBC and the New York Times report that by the end of November 2020, pro-Trump lawyer Lin Wood was hosting at his South Carolina plantation, for strategy sessions aimed at overturning the 2020 election, the whole of Team Kraken—including Byrne, Flynn, and Powell—as well as Doug Logan, the Trumpworld-connected head of an obscure southern Florida cyber-intelligence company called Cyber Ninjas.

As the Sarasota Herald-Tribune reported a few weeks ago, after the election “Patrick Byrne, Michael Flynn, and Sidney Powell all were involved with nonprofits that spent millions funding CEO Doug Logan’s audit work in Arizona.”

{Note: Proof previously published a lengthy exposé on Doug Logan’s Trumpworld connections and the “audit” in Arizona he and his under-resourced “Cyber Ninjas” ultimately conducted.}

In other words, as soon as Byrne realized that (in his own view) there was no way to know who won the 2020 election, he began pouring money into an effort that could not possibly have been completed by the January 6 joint session of Congress intended to certify the election—in the event, Logan’s partisan, fraudulent “audit” of the vote in Arizona took many, many months—but was guaranteed, based on Logan’s past willing participation in the secret conspiracy hatched at Wood’s plantation, to draw enough light (if not heat) to the vote there that it would persuade GOP legislators in Arizona to hand Trump an election Byrne now concedes he never had any idea if Trump won.

Those Republican legislators in Arizona are the very same ones domestic terrorist Ali Alexander infamously said he “owned”—through his Stop the Steal operation—as of the time that Team Kraken was hatching its plot at Wood’s South Carolina plantation.

Byrne now admits that, in the run-up to directly lobbying the sitting President of the United States in the Oval Office, “a lot” of people—some not just ideating but writing up ideas that Byrne now finds objectionable—were “floating around” Powell’s camp at the Westin Hotel, along with a group of “very active outsiders” who had a much greater level of access to Powell, Giuliani, and other (as Byrne terms them) “insiders” because they were “closely tied in” to that circle of insiders. He does not name any of the members of either group in his 85-minute statement, though he surely knows the names and backgrounds of these individuals sufficiently to characterize their place in the Trumpworld firmament. Byrne admits, even, to yet another group with access to Trump’s legal team being involved with the November and December 2020 operations at the Westin and Trump International Hotel, this being individuals from “all across the country” who were—quite clearly derisively, whatever Byrne now says—referred to by Team Kraken as “the boys from Oshkosh” (that is, men Byrne, Powell, Flynn, and Giuliani deemed to be yokels but to whom they nevertheless granted access to their time and energies. This latter group of individuals who had such surprising access to the legal team of then-president Trump were, Byrne says, “staying at hotels all over the city [D.C.]”, which underscores how widely Team Kraken had broadcast its illicit activities at the Westin within Trumpworld, and how widely it cast its net for new political intelligence—no matter how dubious or ill-informed the source of it.

The result was that, as Patrick Byrne describes it, what we’d now deem to be seditious “memos” were “bouncing around” Byrne, Giuliani, Flynn, and Powell’s operation for weeks between the time that Team Kraken decamped from a former slave plantation in South Carolina (for another state in the Old Confederacy, Virginia) and the time the group’s leading members gained access to the Oval Office.

Byrne’s narrative about how he gained direct access to Trump inside the Oval Office is facially preposterous, but it nevertheless warrants a robust analysis.

Despite the fact that Powell had routinely had access to Trump prior to December 18, 2020; despite the fact that Powell and Byrne’s team included Rudy Giuliani, then the president’s personal lawyer (and a regular visitor to the White House who could easily have arranged access to Trump for Team Kraken at any time); and despite the fact that the third leading member of Team Kraken was an ex-Trump National Security Advisor and a one-time candidate to be Trump’s 2016 running mate; Byrne says that he and his team were able to get to Trump only because an aide in the most insurrectionist camp in the Trump White House—Peter Navarro’s office—was duped into thinking that ex-Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne simply wanted a “tour of the White House” at 7:00PM on a Friday night.

That Navarro’s office would have been well aware of Byrne’s team and their work—and well aware that no one could expect to be granted an impromptu tour of the People’s House on only 45 minutes notice on a Friday night—is clear. But Byrne’s implausible narrative exculpates Peter Navarro and his aide Garrett Ziegler from responsibility for getting Team Kraken into the White House, even though Ziegler has since confessed, in a shocking interview with insurrectionist New Mexico State University law professor David K. Clements, how upset he was in December 2020 that then-president Trump wasn’t getting to hear from far-right Trump loyalists but only the White House Counsel’s office.

The notion that Ziegler would bring Patrick Byrne, Sidney Powell, and Michael Flynn to within a few feet of the Oval Office without first alerting his boss and mentor Peter Navarro can’t be credited—but it appears to be Byrne’s present claim. Just so, it is not clear why Trump would have agreed to meet with Byrne, Powell, or Flynn off-schedule—let alone for four and a half hours (see below)—if he hadn’t anticipated that they had something good for him. Proof questions whether any President of the United States in the modern era has ever held a four and a half hour meeting with individuals whom he never agreed to meet with ex ante.

{Note: Notably, Byrne only says that Trump had “no idea” that Team Kraken was coming to him on that particular day and at that particular time, not that Trump was surprised that the members of Team Kraken wanted to speak with him. While at various points in his narrative Byrne insists that Trump was unaware of certain schemes being hatched by Team Kraken, in every case Byrne is evidently speculating—as he had no idea what Trump had been told by his lawyers, Giuliani and Powell, or by persons close to Trump from inside Michael Flynn’s circle.}

That Byrne had decided to drop Giuliani from the chain of communication being used by Team Kraken at exactly the moment Giuliani had declined to greenlight any black ops is telling, as is the fact that following Giuliani’s declination Byrne became committed to seeing the one man in Trumpworld in a position to gainsay Giuliani: Trump himself. It cannot be underscored sufficiently that the December 18, 2020 meeting in the Oval Office was only attended by Rudy Giuliani because then-President Trump brought him into the meeting via speakerphone; in fact, Team Kraken’s goal was to get Trump alone, which offers some indication of the sort of ideas they hoped to put before him.

According to major media, those ideas included martial law.

Team Kraken ultimately had the presidential-schedule equivalent of an eternity alone with Trump. Per Byrne, it was “twenty minutes to a half-hour” during which the only people in the Oval Office on the night of December 18—and therefore the only people who can say what was said during that span—were Trump, his lawyer Sidney Powell, Powell’s client Michael Flynn, an associate of Powell who undoubtedly would claim that (like Powell) she enjoyed attorney-client privilege with Trump, and Patrick Byrne.

The problem with Byrne’s timeline is that he says the total length of the meeting with Trump was four and a half hours, and that Trump’s White House advisers and Giuliani were only present for two hours of the meeting. In total, then, Team Kraken had two and a half hours alone with Donald Trump just a matter of hours before he tweeted out to tens of millions of supporters, “Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!”

In determining whether anything may have been said to President Trump late in the evening of the 18th that would have explained his now-infamous tweet on the 19th, we can say that we know where Team Kraken had come to land, by the 18th, on the issue of what Trump should do to stay in office. What they’d settled on was Peter Navarro’s “Green Bay Sweep” plot.

The very Peter Navarro whose mentee managed to get Team Kraken into the Oval—and who Trump tweeted about gleefully on December 19 (see the screenshot above).

The Navarro plan, endorsed by Team Kraken, required that a series of spectacles be staged in order to convince GOP state legislators to hand Trump the election, but also required that the January 6 joint session be postponed by some means that no one had publicly articulated—until, that is, December 19, when Trump suddenly, after meeting alone with Team Kraken for two and a half hours in total, touted a “wild” protest very close to the site of the joint session he needed postponed. A protest he would headline.

{Note: During this same period of time—mid-December 2020—Ali Alexander, who Trump ultimately asked to lead the march with Alex Jones, told a crowd in Arizona that he was in touch with “people from the White House.” Trump had retweeted Alexander on Twitter as early as June 2019, thereafter inviting him to a “social media summit” at the White House. Trump is well-known for making non-memorialized calls on a non-secure cell to unapproved persons from the White House residence, making it impossible to know whether Alexander or any other person joined in the portion of the December 18, 2020 meeting in the presidential residence. This is certainly a question for Congress to ask Patrick Byrne under oath, however.}

If the December 18 Oval Office meeting can now be said to have had three stages—(1) the meeting in the Oval Office involving only Team Kraken and Donald Trump (20 to 30 minutes at a minimum); (2) the meeting in the Oval Office involving Trump, Team Kraken, and a set of Trump advisers either in person or on the phone (2 hours); and (3) a meeting in the president’s private residence in the White House with Trump, Team Kraken, and possibly others (2 hours)—it’s notable that Byrne now concedes that during Meeting #1 he kept quiet and permitted the presentation to Trump to be made by two people he knew were then in favor of what Byrne calls “black ops”: Sidney Powell and Michael Flynn, the latter Phil Waldron’s friend and former boss. It would have been deemed critical for Powell and Flynn—Flynn as a Waldron proxy (or vice versa)—to make their case to Trump without Rudy Giuliani present, and therefore as quickly as possible, before Giuliani could be brought in. But equally telling is that after Meeting #2, which involved both Giuliani and a number of Trump aides who likewise could be relied upon to oppose any “black ops,” Trump himself decided that what he wanted was to spend two hours of private discussion in his White House residence not with his top White House advisers but with the pro-black-ops squad: Powell; Powell’s attorney-client-privileged associate; Phil Waldron boss Flynn; and a man who had been unable to understand why his intelligence experts wouldn’t engage in black ops on Waldron’s suggestion, Patrick Byrne.

These are the people Trump spoke to last, voluntarily, and privately. And within hours of this meeting, the president was all-in on making sure that the January 6 protests Ali Alexander—the man who “owned” the Arizona GOP—was planning would be “wild.”

(5) By the time of the three-stage White House meeting Team Kraken held with Trump on December 18, 2020—most of it alone with the president—the conversation focused on alleged foreign intelligence, martial law, and the seizure of voting-machine data.

So what was it that Team Kraken wanted to talk to Trump about that no one else did—or would? Thanks to Byrne’s lengthy confession, we now know. What Sidney Powell and Michael Flynn wanted to talk to Trump about was one thing in particular: foreign intelligence.

In a sense this is unsurprising, as the team Powell and Flynn had assembled at Wood’s South Carolina plantation was almost entirely made up of intelligence experts, as was Byrne’s team, as was the team of Michael Lindell—another member of Team Kraken.

As Byrne explains in his confession, Team Kraken’s December 18 plan was simple:

1. Convince Trump that a foreign nation had tampered with the 2020 voting; and

2. convince Trump to issue an executive order seizing election data on that basis.

Per Sidney Powell’s public filings, the country Team Kraken lit upon as having most directly tampered with voting machines—in their narrative, at least—was Venezuela. Powell and the rest of Team Kraken claimed they had intelligence out of Venezuela confirming an election-interference plot by the Communists there that would (mirabile dictu) justify Trump doing what they desperately hoped he would: seize election data.

So how did any of these people have access to intelligence coming out of Venezuela?

There are three likely explanations, all of which are worthy of additional exploration:

1. One of Rudy Giuliani’s only clients is a Venezuelan multimillionaire with ties to Venezuela’s government but even stronger ties among the resistance to that government—precisely the class of persons from which Powell claimed she was getting all her intelligence (albeit she used the term “defector” in filings).

2. One of Michael Lindell’s closest friends is Eduardo Bolsonaro, the son of Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro and a man Brazilian media strongly suggests would have access to high-level Brazilian intelligence about the alleged activities of its chief geopolitical enemy, Venezuela. Proof has reported on the many clandestine Trump-Lindell-Bolsonaro contacts here, here, and here.

3. Erik Prince, a Trump ally with ties to Flynn who is—like Flynn—obsessed with amateur intelligence-gathering efforts, made a secret trip in 2019 to speak to the government of Venezuela, which trip he both subsequently lied about and claimed had been authorized by the Trump administration (see the Trump-Venezuela chapter of Macmillan’s 2020 book Proof of Corruption for more).

It is important to remember that, by December 2020, Trump had already sought, prior to both the 2016 and 2020 elections, political intelligence from nations hostile to the United States. In both cases he did so as part of his efforts to win election to office.

In 2016, it was Russia, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, and far-right interests in Israel (see Macmillan’s 2019 book Proof of Conspiracy for more).

In 2019, it was pro-Kremlin elements in Ukraine (see, generally, Proof of Corruption).

In 2020, prior to the presidential election, it was China (see the Trump-China chapter of Proof of Corruption).

So the notion that Trump’s most radical advisers would seek to convince him to do an end-around on America’s intelligence services and accept “evidence” benefitting him politically—even, or perhaps we would do better to say especially, political intelligence coming out of a hostile foreign country—isn’t just plausible but a modus operandi that Trump had engaged in seven times before December 2020 and often with the aid of Flynn and Giuliani in particular.

Yet Byrne’s 85-minute confession underscores that the Powell-Flynn plan was little more than a gestural intelligence operation, as all it needed to produce was sufficient specter of foreign interference to justify Trump seize voting-machine data. By the same token, once such voting-machine data had been seized, all that was needed was the sufficient specter of a problem with the data to get Republican politicians at both the state and federal level to move to overturn a democratic election. After all, as Byrne had long since realized—he now admits—the truth of the matter was unknowable.

More specifically, Team Kraken knew, after a month at Wood’s South Carolina home, that if Trump could get voting machines—or just images of their contents—using the excuse of foreign-intelligence whispers provided to him by Giuliani or Flynn or even Lindell (which whispers had been provided to Giuliani or Flynn or Lindell by dubious, possibly foreign sources), the machines could quickly be declared as being in some way compromised by a man allied with all three of these Trump advisers: Doug Logan. If this effort were to begin, as planned, in Arizona, it would only have to convince a set of state GOP legislators who Trump ally Ali Alexander already “owned” in full.

And there appears to have been a belief that if the Arizona legislators did what Team Kraken was hoping they would do, other states where Trump had narrowly lost would be quick to follow.

While it is unclear whether this component of Powell’s presentation occurred during Meeting #1 or Meeting #3, according to Byrne Powell produced for Trump an October 23, 2020 CISA letter indicating that Iran had made efforts to compromise the election. While of course CISA also found that the Iranian efforts had failed—and had no effect on the election whatsoever, with CISA chief Chris Krebs in fact announcing that the 2020 presidential election was America’s most secure election ever—Team Kraken apparently believed Trump could be persuaded by the notion that an entity Trump had long believed favored Joe Biden’s candidacy over his (Iran) had stolen the election.

But Byrne’s confession includes another telling slip, which is that Team Kraken also appears to have provided Trump with intelligence regarding foreign interference in the election that (as Byrne puts it) “we [Team Kraken] had found”—which evidence does not appear to involve Iran. Rather, according to public filings on this topic later made by Sidney Powell, it instead involved, as noted above, the nation of Venezuela.

While the intelligence on Iran that Powell and Flynn provided to Trump would not have been a surprise to him, as he would have known of it from his briefings months earlier, any Venezuela intelligence—or, rather, intelligence purporting to be genuine and from Venezuela—would have been new to him, requiring a novel briefing from Powell and Flynn.

{Note: Patrick Byrne slips again in his confession, later admitting that the conversation about foreign intelligence took up the first “45 minutes” of the Oval Office meeting, suggesting that what is here being called “Meeting #1” may well have lasted that long—rather than the 20 to 30 minutes Byrne had claimed earlier in his confession. At another point in his statement, Byrne says that “after 30 or 45 minutes [in the Oval Office] there was a pause, and he [Trump] said [to Byrne and Flynn and Powell], ‘What are you telling me? What are you folks saying?’” The way Byrne relates this part of the story seems to indicate that it occurred before any other Trump advisers had been brought into the room, but it also underscores that Trump felt he was being given information on foreign election tampering that he hadn’t heard before—increasing the odds it involved “new” findings about Venezuela from Team Kraken rather than “old” information about the Iranians from CISA. Indeed, Byrne concedes that the conversation with Trump on December 18—at least the part Team Kraken led—focused on the team’s theory that a foreign power had “‘jujitsued’ [altered]…[the election results] in six counties” in six battleground states].” Because we know this particular Team Kraken theory involved Venezuela rather than Iran, we can conclude that Venezuela was the focus of at least Meeting #1 and Meeting #3 in December, if not also the part to which Giuliani and the White House Counsel’s office were ear- and/or eyewitnesses.}

(6) In the lead-up to January 6, Trump was clearly game—ready to instrumentalize vague claims of foreign election interference to seize voting-machine data using federal soldiers and/or federal law enforcement officers.

On January 31, 2022, the New York Times published a report with this headline:

This report appears to confirm Byrne’s claim that Trump was, on December 18, 2020, intrigued by the idea of “seizing” voting-machine data—an action that would have launched a historic self-coup but that Byrne now dismisses as insignificant because Team Kraken existed in “reality world, not legal world” (meaning Team Kraken, as Byrne now confesses, was operating in an extra-legal mindset despite being headed by a former prosecutor). It appears that the only disagreement amongst Donald Trump’s mid-December 2020 late-night amateur “briefers” was which federal agents were best for seizing voting-machine data for the first time in U.S. history: the United States Armed Forces, the National Guard, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the United States Marshals Service, or the Department of Homeland Security.

It is during his discussion of how—not why—election data could be seized by federal agents acting on behalf of a losing presidential candidate that Byrne mentions the presence in the Oval Office on December 18 of anyone besides Team Kraken, namely White House Counsel Pat Cipollone. So Meeting #2 may well have begun only after Team Kraken had successfully “briefed” Trump on alleged foreign intelligence never seen, vetted, or confirmed by any U.S. intelligence agency (either at the time or since).

This same point in Meeting #2 is when Byrne first acknowledges the presence of Rudy Giuliani via speakerphone. Giuliani’s contribution, claims Byrne, was not to object—despite being Trump’s personal lawyer and adviser—to the unprecedented seizure of election data, but merely to urge Trump to not use uniformed federal agents to do it.

This suggests that by this point in the conversation either Trump had already stated his intention to seize the data (leaving his attorney to only quibble with him about the details) or Giuliani had come to be earnestly on board with almost the whole of Team Kraken’s unprecedented plan, which raises the harrowing question of what parts of that plan Giuliani had previously been against (which opposition had led the members of Team Kraken to hide the December 18 meeting from him in the first instance).

That Byrne was indeed, as this Proof account surmises, every bit as militant as Powell and Flynn is underscored by his confession that even after Trump had declared that only the FBI or DHS should be allowed to handle election data, he (Byrne) was “pushy” with the president and tried to get soldiers to be the one handling the data, instead.

Trump’s response, as Byrne interpreted it, was (per Byrne), “I [Trump] have made my decision [about seizing election data]—we’re talking about either DHS or the FBI [doing it].” Byrne claims that Trump explicitly said during this part of the meeting, “If I think this [the 2020 election] was a foreign attack on our country….that it’s been hijacked by a foreign government, can I really [leave office on January 20]?” (Keep in mind that Trump had no evidence at the time—nor has he received any since—that the 2020 election results were tampered with by a foreign power in any way.)

{Note: Byrne says he knows Flynn “privately” agreed with him about using soldiers. Byrne now says, “I will defend to my dying breath that that [using soldiers to seize election data] would have been the right thing to do.”}

Byrne thus casually testifies (albeit not under oath) that then-president Trump adopted Team Kraken’s plan to seize election data, which data would then have been analyzed by Team Kraken’s intelligence officials with an eye toward getting state legislators to decertify Biden electors: in other words, Peter Navarro’s “Green Bay Sweep” coup plot.

It is little wonder, now, that Peter Navarro’s most trusted personal aide was the one who made sure Team Kraken could get into the Oval Office on December 18, 2020.

(7) The recently discovered secret strategy meeting held at Trump International Hotel on January 4, which featured presentations to GOP members of Congress by Team Kraken member Mike Lindell, Barbara Ledeen’s business partner Don Berlin, and other members of the coup plot in fact occurred in Trump’s private residence in Washington: the Trump Town House in Trump’s D.C. hotel, where his Insurrection Eve war council would be held the following night.

When this January 4 meeting was recently reported on by the New York Times, it was placed inside a first-floor “conference room” at Trump International Hotel that was not part of the Trump Town House. Byrne says this is incorrect, and that in fact the Team Kraken pitch meeting—following up on Trump’s call to GOP state legislators 48 hours earlier, which had been arranged by the same Amistad Project that was a floor above Team Kraken at a Westin in Arlington—occurred in the Trump Town House itself. Tellingly, it occurred the same day Eduardo Bolsonaro arrived in D.C. and the same day Bolsonaro met with at least one Trump (Ivanka Trump) at the White House.

As Proof has already reported, the use of video conferencing during this January 4 meeting confirms that individuals located at the White House—including Trump—could have attended the meeting, as well as the meeting that was held in the same space the following night. This would also include Eduardo Bolsonaro and various other individuals placed at the January 5 meeting by Trump administration official Charles Herbster in a Facebook post who now claim to not have been physically present in the hotel: Peter Navarro, Michael Flynn, and Corey Lewandowski business partner David Bossie (the latter a 2016 Trump deputy campaign manager who is now attempting to become the chair of the RNC, and authored a recent RNC resolution declaring the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol “legitimate political discourse”).

Per Byrne, the January 4 meeting ran for three hours and focused almost wholly on an intelligence analysis of the 2020 presidential election—confirming that the focus of the “Team Trump pitch” in the 48 hours before the attack on the Capitol (called such here at Proof because the January 4 meeting occurred in a space the Trump campaign had rented out for the week) was on false claims of foreign interference in the election, not the scattered instances of minor vote-counting brouhahas Trump’s legal team had fruitlessly focused on in court. Indeed, it appears that nearly everything presented to members of Congress on January 4 (and possibly to the GOP state legislators Trump spoke to on January 2) was information that had deliberately not been put before any court due to its preposterousness and the simple fact that none of it could be proven.

{Note: I won’t repeat Team Kraken’s Venezuela-based conspiracy theory here, except to say that it positions as its mastermind a Venezuelan dictator who passed away many years ago.}

What’s surprising about the joint Team Trump-Team Kraken event on January 4, 2021 is that, per Byrne, two-thirds of its roughly three-hour run-time focused on crafting a “strategy” for overturning a democratic election, not establishing a justification for it.

This is how Byrne describes the “strategy” Team Kraken crafted with GOP members of Congress:

And here was the strategy [for January 6]: the strategy was to have [Republican] senators and congressmen—

{NB: Byrne here cuts himself off and starts a new train of thought.}

…

The Constitution treats the Vice President’s job [during the joint session of Congress to certify a presidential election] as like a bureaucratic job, just a ministerial position: he’s going to open the envelopes [with the elector tallies from each U.S. state] and read them.

The 1887 law [the Electoral Count Act of 1887] provides mechanisms for, “This is how we’re going to work through disputes [over electors].” Which tells you—tells me—it no longer envisions the Vice President’s job as just opening envelopes and reading [them]. Because if that’s all you’re doing, how can there be disputes?

Note here that, as any lawyer could have told Patrick Byrne and perhaps did, elector disputes requiring the invocation of the Electoral Count Act of 1887 arise when state-level authorities entitled to do so send documentation to Congress establishing that their state has certified two separate slates of electors. This did not occur on January 6, 2021, though it is what Trump was hoping would have occurred by that date. When it did not, he and his allies (such as Byrne) sought a delay of the joint session by order of either Vice President Mike Pence or Senate president pro tempore Chuck Grassley, a Republican senator from Iowa.

Byrne continues:

So the discussion [on January 4 in the Trump Town House] was—and the desire was—….the idea was, on January 6, to have enough objections brought by enough senators that the whole thing [the joint session] would have been bought a week or ten days. And the idea was everyone would go back to their states, [and] each state could have its own quickie hearings like happened in Maricopa [Arizona], [and] state legislators could do anything they wanted: have hearings, call witnesses, do anything they want for a week, and then they just have a new vote.

To be clear, the largest number of states Trump and his team ever proposed to contest on January 6 was ten, with two hours of debate being the maximum allowed for each dispute. What this means is that Trump and his team never had more than 20 hours of delay available to them via lawful means; it would require, instead, some extraordinary event for a 20-hour delay (which translates to a maximum delay of one or two days) to somehow transform itself into a seven- to ten-day delay. Byrne does not explain, nor could he, how “enough objections brought by enough senators” on January 6 would have led to a seven- to ten-day delay in the certification of Joe Biden’s victory, let alone how there would be any natural connection between such a delay and ten state legislatures immediately going into special session to hold “quickie hearings.” There is nothing in the Electoral Count Act of 1887 that imagines that the issue of who has won an election must leave Congress the very moment Congress begins to debate it.

Byrne’s reference to a “new vote” is also telling, as of course it is not state legislatures that vote for president, and therefore there is no “old” vote of such bodies that could ever be replaced by a “new” one. Rather, it is the individual voters of each state who vote, with the popular-vote winner in each state getting awarded all (or in two states, at least some) of the state’s electors. That a Team Trump-Team Kraken strategy session held in Trump’s private residence 48 hours before the attack on the Capitol envisioned Republican politicians simply holding a “new vote” for President of the United States after “quickie hearings” on an issue Byrne had determined was terminally irresolvable on November 10 confirms that the “Green Bay Sweep” was just a brute-political-force coup plot using the pretext of foreign election interference as a triggering mechanism.

In short, Trump and his team, having found a way to take advantage of real foreign interference in 2016, sought to manufacture the appearance of such interference in 2020 to benefit from the same playbook a second time. Given the suffering America went through after the very real foreign election interference it experienced in 2016—and given that Trump spent years calling that interference a “hoax”—it is nauseating to think that the same men who benefited from the real 2016 interference now sought to gin up a hoax of foreign interference in 2020 so they could again take office under dubious circumstances.

Byrne continues:

And they [the state legislatures] would take account of everything they’ve learned in Pennsylvania, everything they’ve learned in Wyoming, everything they’ve learned in Arizona, in that extra seven days, and then they vote again and re-commit their electoral votes.

Of course, Team Trump and its agents had just spent over two months ginning up precisely the “everything they’ve learned” that Byrne wanted this “new vote” to be based upon, while the 2020 Biden campaign had done no such legwork because there was no reason at all to do it. Just so, not only had Byrne and his team already lined up their witnesses for these unprecedented “quickie hearings” but they in fact had fully populated the hearings that had already been held with members of their own cabal: Rudy Giuliani, Phil Waldron, Sidney Powell, and members of the various categories of hangers-on that the Westin crowd had been hobnobbing with from the moment that Donald Trump lost badly in the popular vote and the electoral college on Election Day.

By implying that “evidence” from non-battleground states could be considered in battleground states—as we see in the quote above, information produced by GOP operatives in Wyoming could certainly have been considered by GOP legislators elsewhere—Byrne indicates that Team Kraken’s goal was simply to execute a “do-over” scenario in which the two 2020 presidential candidates would spend a week in mid-January 2021 lobbying state legislatures to vote their way. Needless to say, the Trump team hoped, and very much expected, that Trump would get the “win” that Byrne had promised him via party-line votes at the state level and then, if necessary, a party-line vote (by delegation) in the U.S. House of Representatives. In the states where state-legislature votes would be most hotly contested, the GOP had so artfully gerrymandered the districts that it ensured ironclad Republican rule would translate into a second Trump term—without the nicety of American voters being consulted.

Byrne again:

And everyone’s back in D.C. by January 13 or 16, and Congress is meeting and doing their thing, and making its decision, and the new president—the new term—starts on January 20.

Byrne is, by this point, making no sense at all. Under this coup plot, there would have been no “decision” for Congress to make. The only question would be whether Trump had successfully lobbied enough Republican-led state legislatures for him to have more electoral votes than Joe Biden the second time around. But what is also clear in Byrne’s account is that the only purpose of the farcical process described therein was to reinstall Trump as president; there is no sense that any of the objections made by members of Congress on January 6 would have been anything but a delaying tactic, nor is there any sense that the “quickie [state] hearings” (as Byrne calls them) could get to the truth of an issue in seven to ten days that Byrne had long ago deemed to be permanently irresolvable. None of what Byrne suggests involves any fact-finding by established fact-finding institutions like CISA or the FBI, both of which Byrne freely concedes are staffed by “real investigators”; rather, it’s about brute political strength bolstered by vague and fanciful innuendo regarding foreign election interference.

Summarizing the above coup plot, Byrne confesses, “One could argue that [the plot he proposed to Trump on December 18, 2020] provides some insult to the rule of law.” He underlines that the very law violated—the Electoral Count Act of 1887—is the same law that Team Kraken had relied upon (at least its own benighted, legally bankrupt interpretation of it) in arguing that Vice President Pence had the power to single-handedly postpone a joint session of Congress simply because a debate the Electoral Count Act of 1887 explicitly contemplated had begun. Byrne justifies what he concedes is an “insult to the rule of law” by noting that Team Trump’s disinformation campaign has now led to popular doubt nationally about the result of the 2020 election—but only the presidential election, of course—reaching “70 to 75 percent.” Byrne then falsely insists that only “20%” of Americans believe Biden was legitimately elected; in fact, the actual number is 58%.

That Byrne would seek—even disingenuously—to use polling data his intelligence operation helped produce as a justification for the intelligence operation is dystopic.

To me, the plan of pushing things back to the states for a week to ten days, let everybody—in a week—look into whatever they want to look into, then they vote, [and] if they want to re-commit to Joe Biden [they can], if they want to change to Donald Trump, [they can] change to Donald Trump—it’s a little bit of an aberration from the originally foreseen process, but anything you do at that point was an insult [to the rule of law]. At least this wasn’t insulting the Constitution. Yeah, it was letting a date slide that was set in an 1887 law. That date would have had to slide ten days.

No one in America who supported Joe Biden on November 3, 2020 had anything they “want[ed] to look into” regarding the 2020 election as of January 6, 2021, and therefore giving state legislatures across the country the chance to “look into whatever they want to look into” was a naked partisan play to get local Republican politicians to overrule their neighbors’ votes. Byrne’s minimization of a coup plot as “a little bit of an aberration” and just “letting a [statutorily mandated] date slide” is horrifying, of course, as is the idea that he and his team were lobbying Congress to issue objections to electors not on the basis of any demonstrated fraud but rather—and this is key—to help launch scattered future hearings into that question 65 days after Election Day.

Byrne says he told Trump, “Put us in, coach, we have a plan. We can have an answer in a week.” To get that answer, all Trump had to do was “sign” certain “papers” that had been brought to him by Sidney Powell, the existence of which papers ironically established that Team Kraken had already found the “answer”—it just needed Trump to magic, via executive order, a fig leaf of legitimacy to cover its public announcement.

(8) White House actions caused January 6 to turn violent—and the actions were intentional.

Byrne begins the final half-hour of his confession by noting that the original form of the coup plot would have seen Trump’s allies calling for January 6-like protests in “capitals across America”, with the aim of forcing the “new vote” that Team Kraken wanted to see from state legislatures. This is the same tactic that was being pursued at the time by domestic terrorist Ali Alexander and the Stop the Steal “movement,” for instance in its infamous November 2020 march on the Georgia State Capitol building.

Byrne claims that, in private conversations with his co-conspirators, he was derided as “tedious” for publicly insisting that any state or D.C.-based pro-Trump protests be “peaceful”, suggesting that underscoring this was not as high a priority for the other members of Team Kraken (presumably to include one or more of Rudy Giuliani, who demanded “trial by combat” on January 6; Mike Flynn, who would later call for a coup of the Biden administration; Mike Lindell, who promised that by some unclear means Trump would retake the Oval Office in 2021; or Sidney Powell, who describes the 2020 presidential election as an act of war). It is unclear if persons closer to Trump’s inner circle also found Byrne’s emphasis on peacefulness to be tedious, but we can certainly judge from the actions of the White House that it strongly felt January 6 should be as rowdy (“wild”) as possible.

On Insurrection Eve and Insurrection Day, Byrne says that he got “some of a look into” several of the organizations orchestrating the January 6 “protests”—including Women for America First—and discovered that Proud Boy supporter Cindy Chafian of the Eighty Percent Coalition was involved in “real mischief” with Ali Alexander, inasmuch as (says Byrne) the two were by trying to wrest control of the Women for America First events on January 5 and January 6 from Amy Kremer and her daughter Kylie Jane Kremer.

Unfortunately for Byrne, this has already been widely reported by major media—but not with the implications Byrne gives it. In fact, it does appear the Kremers went to the White House several days before the attack on the Capitol to complain about Ali Alexander, and specifically to express their group Women for America First’s concern that Alexander’s Stop the Steal operation wanted to see January 6 get violent. What we know is that the White House responded to this expression of concern about violence by Donald Trump directly asking the three leaders of the Stop the Steal group—Alex Jones, Roger Stone, and Ali Alexander—to lead the march on the Capitol on January 6.

Arguably, there can be no clearer evidence for any federal investigators than this that Donald Trump knew, by the weekend of January 2, that the joint session could not be postponed as long as he needed it to be through statutorily permissible parliamentary objections alone.

Of Chafian and Alexander, Byrne warns darkly, “Something’s wrong there. They aren’t what they seem to be. They aren’t what they pretend to be.” This—that is, the openness to mischief evident in the composition and leadership of the Eighty Percent Coalition and Stop the Steal— was well known to Kimberly Guilfoyle when she called Ali Alexander from the Trump Town House during the second Team Trump-hosted strategy session held there in two days. This was known when Alexander and Alex Jones were admitted to Trump’s VIP area on January 6 and when Jones (at a minimum) spoke to Trump on January 3. So when Byrne says, “Someone in the Republican Party is behind that [attempt by Alexander and Chafian to take over the orchestration of pre-insurrection events]”, he’s correct—but that “someone” is a group of people in the White House who wanted Alexander and Chafian excised from any public event Trump would be involved in even as Trump himself was privately elevating their role from mere participants in the events of January 6 to the day’s very visible leadership.

Says Byrne,

[On January 5, 2021], this guy named Ali Akbar shows up—Ali Akbar, a.k.a. Ali Alexander, but his real name is Ali Akbar—and it was [Cindy Chafian] and Ali Akbar who kind of snaked [the January 5 Freedom Plaza rallies] away from the Kremer sisters {sic} [of Women for America First]. That’s where the mischief is. And so that little sleight-of-hand—they [Alexander and Chafian] got a hold of [those rallies]—and took it over. They tried to take it over for two days [January 4 and January 5], [though] it is the case that the Kremer sisters {sic} actually got back in the picture for the next morning [January 6]…for the thing [the Trump event] that happened at the White House [Ellipse].

But those two people [Alexander and Chafian]—who I had just enough interaction with to know that there’s “wrong” [there]; it’s wrong, something’s wrong there—they aren’t what they seem to be. They aren’t what they pretend to be. They snaked it away from the Kremer sisters {sic}. And someone in the Republican Party is behind that. So I’ve seen the sleight-of-hand, and I see the sleeve, [but] I don’t know where the sleeve leads, other than that it leads into the Republican Party. And if you want to know what happened [on January 6], and how things evolved as they did on January 6, I do think that there was mischief in place.

Readers of Proof will know whose “sleeve” Byrne is tracking here, whether he accepts it or not: Donald Trump’s. The evidence is overwhelming that during the very period Byrne says that control over the events of Insurrection Week was being “snaked” away from Women for America First, Trump and his top advisers, including his son’s fiancee Kimberly Guilfoyle, were behind the scenes delegating authority to Alexander and his allies. Women for America First, having indeed—as Byrne says—gone to the White House and expressed concern about the possibility of violence on January 6, were thereafter sidelined by Team Trump in all particulars except the one event Team Trump needed to be free of the taint of militarism: the only event Trump planned to appear at himself.

(9) Byrne is spreading “the Big Lie within the Big Lie”—that the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol disadvantaged Donald Trump.

The day after the Capitol attack, I watched Alex Jones insist over and over on his daily InfoWars program that Trump “had the votes” to achieve his ambitions on January 6, and that therefore any disruption to the joint session of that day was only detrimental to his designs. I had no idea what Jones was referring to then, and I do not know what Byrne is referring to now when he says, “What happened on January 6 destroyed any chance he [Trump] had” to get his way on that day.

As detailed above, and as indeed we saw on January 6, Trump had at most—even sans the changes in voting inclinations wrought by the attack on the Capitol—sufficient Senate support in the GOP caucus to get, at most, three states ineffectually contested for a total of six hours of delay. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) opposed Trump’s effort to challenge the 2020 presidential election, and had lobbied most of his caucus to his view. The result was that even if the attack on the Capitol had not occurred, Joe Biden would have been certified the winner of the 2020 election almost exactly when he was: in the early morning hours of January 7, 2021.

If Trump had viewed the attack on the Capitol as destroying his plans, he would have called out the National Guard immediately and issued a video demanding the rioters go home immediately. He did not.

He did not because he needed, as Byrne’s confession admits, a seven- to ten-day delay in the joint session of Congress scheduled for January 6. The only way to achieve such a historically unprecedented delay was for either Vice President Mike Pence to adjourn the proceedings unilaterally or for some other event to force a sudden adjournment of the proceedings. No amount of GOP delay through unwarranted challenges to six (or even ten) slates of battleground-state electors would have gotten Trump the delay he required. Even a ten-state dispute would have extended Trump’s hopes for a second term only one or two days—and only cosmetically, at that, as the electoral-vote tallies wouldn’t have changed, and one or two days wouldn’t have been enough time for any of the state legislatures Trump needed to meet in special session to hold hearings on overruling the will of their voters. Again, Byrne freely concedes all of this; he seems to envision no scenario in which state legislatures would have been able to act on the “Green Bay Sweep” in under seven days, and notes this even as he assures the viewers of his confession that he was more aggressive in pushing Peter Navarro’s scheme than anyone else on Team Kraken.

So when Byrne says—catching himself in mid-sentence in a wild overstatement—that without the Capitol attack Team Trump and Team Kraken had “a plan that had a real likelihood—a real possibility—of working”, he fails to explain how this is possible. His timeline doesn’t add up, which is something Trump (who Byrne repeatedly lauds as very smart) surely would have been able to realize for himself as he was telling a mob at the White House Ellipse that only their actions could save him. If he already had all the votes he needed on Capitol Hill to get the delay he required, why in the world would he have needed a march on the Capitol at all? Indeed, those who heard Trump’s January 6 speech heard him repeatedly imply that he did not have the votes in Congress he needed to win re-election.

According to Byrne, within 24 hours of the January 4 strategy session held in Trump’s private residence, twelve U.S. senators, all of whom Byrne implies were in attendance themselves on January 4—live or via video—or else using staff proxies, had “agreed” to challenge a number of state slates of Biden electors. We know that the number of challenges agreed upon could not have exceeded six, as per major-media reporting both Trump and Giuliani had to call Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) in the midst of the January 6 riot to demand that he up the number of challenges (which was then at approximately three, it appears) from “six” (which is the number Trump and Giuliani had been perhaps quixotically anticipating) to “ten.” Regardless, by the morning of January 6 neither Team Kraken nor Team Trump anticipated there being anything beyond six congressional challenges to slates of Biden electors, meaning no more than twelve total hours of additional congressional debate. Given that the January 6 joint session began at midday on January 6, even twelve hours of debate would have seen Biden’s win certified exactly when it ultimately was: in the morning hours of January 7.

So there can be no credible claim, from Byrne or anyone else, that the January 6 riot—which Trump precipitated and then refused to stop—did anything but increase his odds of getting a longer delay in the joint session.

Yet in fact, a riot alone would not (as we ultimately saw) have given Trump the seven- to ten-day delay his plot required. Only the following events, on January 6, could have effectuated the coup timeline that Patrick Byrne has just outlined in his confession:

(1) A long-term occupation of the Capitol and/or the Capitol grounds. Proof has repeatedly reported on evidence that Stop the Steal leadership, which was on the January 2 Trump conference call in which he outlined the “Green Bay Sweep” coup plot, planned a long-term occupation of the Capitol and/or the Capitol grounds. Ali Alexander, who was delegated authority over the march on the Capitol by Trump himself, had over and over referenced this as his plan for January 6, even calling his scheme “Operation Occupy the Capitol.”

(2) A formally sanctioned postponement of the joint session of Congress. “Step 1” in the coup memo authored by Trump lawyer John Eastman called for either Mike Pence or (if he refused to do it) Senate president pro tempore Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) to use their authority as the presiding officer at the joint session to adjourn the session for a period of time they themselves would announce. While any such attempt at a delay would likely have been met with stiff resistance from other members of Congress—perhaps even some GOP senators—Trump allies in the House of Representatives and U.S. Senate might well have found parliamentary maneuvers sufficient to briefly uphold any ruling from the chair on January 6 that the joint session had to be postponed for several days.

(3) Either the murder of a sitting member of Congress or the taking of congressional hostages. Trump himself, having been told days earlier by the Secret Service that the Capitol and Capitol grounds would be so dangerous on January 6 that he couldn’t even travel there—and that they would be this dangerous regardless of anything he said or did on January 6 or before that—gave a speech on January 6 intended to whip the mob before him into a violent frenzy. His intentions were realized; once the mob he had sent to the Capitol (whose leaders he had handpicked the weekend before) got there, they chanted “Hang Mike Pence!” and hunted Pence in the hallways of the Capitol, getting within minutes of capturing him and his family. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), two other foci of Trump’s ire on January 6 and before, were likewise actively hunted by rioters—confirming that they wished to do more than simply parade through the Capitol. Not only were many of the rioters armed, but some had plastic zip ties with them for use as handcuffs in taking hostages.

As we see above, all three of the possibilities that would have led to a seven- to ten-day delay in the January 6 joint session were actively facilitated by Trump and his top agents, even as Trump handpicked the leaders of the march on the Capitol, refused to call out the forces necessary to quell the resulting riot quickly, watched the chaos at the Capitol unfold with (per numerous witnesses) evident glee, and even added to the chaos by contacting members of Congress mid-riot to demand they increase the number of disputes they were planning to ten—a number well beyond anything Team Trump had previously contemplated or ever provided even manufactured/fraudulent “evidence” to support.

So when Patrick Byrne says in his 85-minute confession that “a dozen [GOP] senators” objecting to several states on January 6 was going to “buy the week [Trump needed]”, not only is that claim empirically false, but the very fact that it is being made points federal investigators to the truth of what Trump and his allies intended—and the only pathways to “victory” they still had on January 6, 2021. And all of them involved either federal crimes (ranging from Obstruction of a Congressional Proceeding to First-Degree Murder) or flagrant attacks on the rule of law (both the Electoral Count Act of 1877 and the fundamental rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution). Patrick Byrne’s confession makes all of this clear. Far from, as Byrne now claims, “utterly destroying” the “Green Bay Sweep” coup plot, the January 6 Capitol attack was its only chance of success. This would’ve been clear to every one of the coup plotters, including Trump, on Insurrection Day—if only because any one of them could multiply 6 (six states) by 2 (two hours of debate permitted per state) and come up with 12 (twelve hours of delay), rather than the 168 to 240 hours of delay (seven to ten days) their coup plot required.

That some portion of Byrne’s confession is an attempt to exculpate himself and enact vengeance on Trump’s enemies is confirmed by what may be the single most stunning statement of Byrne’s 85-minute public appearance: that while he does believe there was “mischief” in the plotting of January 6; that while he does believe this mischief came from “the Republican Party”; that while he does concedes that that Republican Party’s mischief “may lead to the White House”; if Republican Party mischief based in the White House did exist in the days leading up to January 6, 2021, “it leads to some people around Mike Pence” (emphasis supplied). Byrne later in his video listens with great interest to a “reporter” who seems to imply that former Pence chief of staff Nick Ayers and his replacement, Marc Short—the latter a man so reviled by Trump that he was banned from the West Wing—may have been the masterminds of January 6, a violent attack in which the politician to whom both men were and are deeply loyal almost faced assassination. The “Team Pence did it” allegation is incomprehensible, but does draw attention from Trump and, as importantly, Trump advisers like Byrne.

{Note: In the same exchange, the “reporter” in question, identified only by her first name, also floats the possibility that one of Trump’s other enemies—The Lincoln Project—may have masterminded January 6, an event that sought to overturn the election of the Lincoln Project’s favored candidate. The “Lincoln Project did it” defense may be even more incomprehensible than its predecessor.}

From my experience as a federal criminal investigator, I would say that Byrne’s pre-concession that the trail of criminal evidence will lead to Republicans in the White House underscores his certainty that the coup plotters are now being investigated aggressively by Congress and possibly—though this is less clear—by the Department of Justice. In pinning January 6 on Team Pence, Byrne’s effort to steer suspicion from Team Trump is palpable. But it is also likely fruitless, as it comports with none of the evidence presently available. In this view, Byrne’s confession is not an exculpation but a desperate bid to deflect blame for a historic crime—blame which is almost certain to eventually come down on him and his compatriots.

(10) During the “Q&A” portion of Byrne’s 85-minute presentation, Byrne spoke at length—and refused to answer almost every question asked of him. But he did—seemingly accidentally—make some additional admissions.

An Associated Press reporter asked for more information from Byrne about the identities of the participants in the January 4 meeting, and he refused to answer.

The same reporter asked for Byrne to detail with specificity the sort of “evidence” Byrne and his team presented to members of Congress on January 4. He would not.

Oddly, Byrne appeared to want to prove to reporters that he was well aware of the language of the Electoral Count Act of 1877—even though he routinely forgot its name—which was odd given that he also routinely neglected to mention the debate time limits that flow from the Act. What Byrne does do in the Q&A portion of his video is reveal that Trump and his allies didn’t so much hope that there would be enough hours of debate to draw out the joint session for seven to ten days but hope that there would simply be enough hours of debate to convince Pence to unilaterally postpone the joint session for that period of time. Why Byrne or anyone else believed (or now claims to have believed) that statutorily mandated debate would somehow self-implode into a statute-defying, unprecedented postponement of the joint session—and the taking of the certification out of the hands of Congress, i.e. the opposite of what the Act at issue demands—is unclear. It remains incomprehensible, and perhaps deliberately so.

As to the attendance at the January 4 meeting—the key element of the question from the Associated Press—Byrne said, “I’d rather you get that from articles. I’m not in the business of—I’m talking about the important stuff that happened.” In fact, no articles provide the data the AP requested, and Byrne’s answer only underscores the need to subpoena him and put him under oath. Indeed, it is notable that Byrne did not claim not to know who had been present on January 4, but rather that he would not say. At a minimum, Byrne says, he “recognized a couple of the [GOP] senators” who were at the meeting either live or via video.

Byrne’s answer to the second question asked of him—whether Powell’s “Hammer and Scorecard” conspiracy theory was raised on January 4—is more revealing, inasmuch as Byrne firmly states that that theory was “too speculative” to be raised at the events on December 18 and January 4. The problem here is that, as Proof has reported, after the January 4 presentation Don Berlin, a business partner of Senate staffer (for Chuck Grassley) Barbara Ledeen and (as the Washington Post reports) “a private intelligence operative who has held a high-level security clearance, worked for a time as an expert at the Defense Department, and has performed classified work for the U.S. government on behalf of defense contractors”, contacted unnamed “Senate staffers” about providing “additional evidence” of a stolen election.

Given Berlin’s lengthy intelligence background and his participation in the work done by Team Kraken, this “evidence” would have been additional intel gathered by Byrne and his compatriots—for instance, precisely the “Hammer and Scorecard” theory that Byrne says was not initially raised at Trump International Hotel on January 4. So there is no way to know whether information Team Kraken may have (if Byrne is telling the truth) held back in its initial presentation was subsequently provided via email. But we do know, from Byrne, that a GOP staffer from the Senate Intelligence Committee was present at the meeting, suggesting that Berlin’s follow-up email not only was intel being sent by an intelligence expert but may have been sent, at least in part, to some of the GOP members of Congress dealing with foreign intelligence as elected officials.

{Note: Byrne’s claim that Powell’s conspiracy theories “played no role whatsoever” in her private presentations to Trump and his allies is difficult to accept, given that Powell had no qualms or hesitation about making her accusations public. Why she would have publicly made allegations that she then refused to repeat in the fora where they would have mattered most and been most influential is never explained by Byrne, nor is it clear that it could be. Indeed, Byrne says that Team Kraken presented Trump with evidence of foreign involvement in the election—which is, in essence, Powell’s “Hammer and Scorecard” conspiracy theory—so what could all that evidence have entailed, if not the only “evidence” that Powell had on this score?}

The third question asked of Byrne during his Q&A was the most direct: which foreign country do you believe interfered in the 2020 election? Byrne’s response: “I don’t want [to say].” Why this critical information would have been offered to the President of the United States at a historic moment for our country, but now can’t be repeated to the public during a statement Byrne insists was intended to tell America the full story of what happened in the lead-up to January 6, is unclear. Byrne told his audience that he now wanted to “set[ ] aside” the question of “who” stole the 2020 presidential election and focus only on “how” it was done. The problem with this is that Byrne’s December 2020 presentation to Trump depended on any election interference Team Kraken had found being the product of machinations by a foreign power, lest (per Byrne himself) Trump lack even the arguable legal authority to seize voting-machine data. That the justification for this component of the coup plot now can’t even be spoken of in public is telling—and inculpatory. “I really don’t want to go into theories of what happened on November 3” is not an acceptable response to the revelation of a coup plot that aimed to use those very theories to justify the overturning of a democratic election.

While Byrne did repeat that “I think there was foreign involvement”, he also said “I don’t really know [who it was]” and admitted some of his earlier “theories” turned out to be “false.” The casual admission that he went to the President of the United States in December 2020—having no background in intelligence whatsoever—and promised Trump an election “win” on the basis of theories he now admits the truth of which he didn’t know is stunning.

Almost as telling as Byrne saying “I don’t want to answer that question [about which nation was involved]” is what he does say: he mentions the SolarWinds hack, which was believed to have been perpetrated by Russia; and he mentions China by name; and he repeatedly references election interference by Iran during his statement. What we can presume from him saying “I don’t want to answer that question [about which nation was involved]” seems to be that the nation whose name he dare not speak is one that is not among those three. Given that his co-conspirator Powell repeatedly cited a fourth country not in the list Byrne provided—Venezuela—it seems to point toward this being the country Byrne now won’t name. He even hints at a possible reason for his hesitation on this score, confessing that the “sources” he and Powell and Flynn used for their foreign intelligence weren’t ones he’s sure they could (or should) have “trust[ed].” This indicates that were he to name the nation he believes was behind the allegedly stolen 2020 election, he might also be pointing toward the dubious “sources” who provided this intelligence to Team Kraken in an effort to tamper with an election.

All of the evidence Proof has gathered indicates that the source Byrne will not name is Eduardo Bolsonaro, and that the nation whose government sought to tamper with the 2020 presidential election by providing dubious intelligence to Team Trump and Team Kraken is Brazil—one of the six largest nations on Earth, and nominally a U.S. ally. Whereas accusations against Russia or Iran or China would not be shocking, as the federal government has made them many times before, Byrne’s refusal to say the word “Venezuela” could be readily explained by the fact that doing so would launch, in fact, the sort of scandal involving a U.S. ally (and a Venezuelan enemy) the likes of which American politics has not previously dealt with.

{Note: While Byrne does say “China is involved in this”, it is clear that this is not the nation whose name he refuses to speak in answering reporters’ questions. Note also that Venezuela is a close Chinese—as well as Russian—ally. “China has a hand in this”, Byrne says, “but there are a lot of other—anyway, let’s not get into the geopolitics of this.” That Byrne is protecting his sources, or his source’s sources, seems clear. And yet these are the people Congress should most want to speak with, as they were seeking to influence unstable Trump allies like Byrne to try to overturn America’s democracy. Any such effort would be akin to an act of war. Even so, Byrne cagily says, “I don’t want to go into, yet, the forces behind [the ‘stolen’ election].”}

In one of his many digressions, Byrne casually admits to being in contact with current law enforcement officials who he claims are investigating foreign interference in the 2020 election. “I think that you will see handcuffs on people”, he says, and then, “there’s no way you’re not going to see people picked up [arrested]” over foreign election interference. The idea that Byrne would so blithely confess that Trump’s allies (and possibly Trump himself) are receiving illegal leaks from law enforcement—unless Byrne is lying again, and has had no such contacts or information—is difficult for Proof to process, and yet it’s precisely the sort of lie Erik Prince told on Trump’s behalf back in October 2016, and that Rudy Giuliani then told in speaking of the FBI.

In a final, rambling monologue, Byrne observes that one of the problems Trump was facing in January 2021—and in Byrne’s view, faces still—is that he’s only gotten rid of “half the swamp rats” surrounding him as aides an advisers. This reference to the “purge” of Trump’s government that occurred in 2019 and 2020, which purge was led by Clarence Thomas’s wife Ginni Thomas and the aforementioned Barbara Ledeen (a good friend of Michael Flynn), is unmistakable as such—especially as it accompanies Byrne’s recommendation that Trump appoint Flynn as a sort of post-election tzar to get to the bottom of alleged foreign interference in the 2020 election. This dovetails with the effort now being made by Stop the Steal leader Roger Stone to recruit Flynn as the Republican Party candidate for President of the United States in 2024.

Given that Flynn was apparently one of the actual masterminds behind the 2020 coup attempt Patrick Byrne aided, the drumbeat for him to be Trump’s successor is chilling.

Conclusion

As you have seen above, Proof has not simply credulously adopted Byrne’s proposed narrative—nor will federal investigators. As a former federal criminal investigator, I will say that the most reliable of the information given by a witness tends to be that which the witness deems the least important, as they have the least motivation to lie about that which they don’t think could harm them. Throughout his confession, Byrne seems to have very little sense of how much what he is saying could hurt both himself and others, though at points this willful or artful or negligent naiveté gives way to an evident anxiety about what he is saying—and it is these portions of Byrne’s confession to which Proof has given the least credence.

Toward the end of his confession, Byrne says, continuing his self-admitted attempt to direct “real investigators” (it is unnerving that he doesn’t consider anyone in his camp a real investigator, given their 2020 actions) away from Trump and Team Kraken—that the question that needs to be asked about Ali Alexander of Stop the Steal and Cindy Chafian of the Eighty Percent Coalition is, “[Given that] I think this side [the GOP] was penetrated by all sorts of bad actors and all kinds of mixed motives [prior to January 6], how [did] Cindy Chafian grease[ ]—snake[ ]—that [January 5 rally] permit away from her bosses [at Women for America First], and [bring] in Ali Akbar? What happened there? And who was pulling their strings? Who was behind them? And I think you will find Republican [Party] hands were involved in this.”

He is right. And all of the evidence confirms that the hands in question belonged to the man who ran the Republican Party—indeed, with an iron fist—on January 6, 2021.

Byrne closes his confession with a direct appeal to the House January 6 Committee: “Why don’t you just have me in? I think I know more than anyone. I was in the middle of it all….[and] I’ll tell them everything….I’d be happy to tell any of the people looking into this [January 6]…the exact truth….I know far more information [than I’ve given here], and I’m happy to talk to any congressional committee.” It’s an offer that may ultimately be accepted—and surely should be extended as soon as possible.

Give a gift subscription

The Basics

The Washington Post just reported on a January 4, 2021 Trump International Hotel meeting at which members of the January 6 conspiracy met to discuss using National Security Agency data to “prove” foreign interference in the 2020 presidential election.

The Post report is great—but misses connections that reporting at Proof has revealed.

Trump Int…

Read more

Give a gift subscription

Introduction

On Insurrection Eve—January 5, 2021—the epicenter of Trumpist coup plotting in the United States, the White House excepted, wasn’t the now-infamous Willard Hotel in Washington, but rather Trump’s so-called “private residence” in the nation’s capital: the Trump Town House at Trump International Hotel. Presiding over the war room in the Town H…

Read more

Introduction

There’s simply no other way to put this: the bizarre, still unexplained Insurrection Eve statement issued to U.S. media by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA)—a stark declaration concerning the anticipated whereabouts of sitting Vice President of the United States Mike Pence over the coming 24 hours—remains one of the most sinister moments in the who…

Read more

Introduction

It’s little secret that the far right of American politics—for all its obsession with “law-and-order”—is, as a class, more poorly informed about criminal law, criminal justice, criminal investigations, and criminal prosecutions than any similarly preoccupied subset…

Read more

{Note: This is Part 3 of an ongoing series in the January 6 section of Proof. Part 4 is due soon, and will focus on Stop the Steal co-organizer Ali Alexander. Part 1 is here, and Part 2 is here. Note that an important coda was added to the bottom of this article on January 10th, 2022.}

Introduction

There were many—indeed one might say innumerable—reasons …

Read more

{Note: This is Part 2 of an ongoing series in the January 6 section of Proof. Part 3 is due soon, and will focus on Stop the Steal co-organizer Ali Alexander. Part 1 in the series is here.}

Introduction

While we don’t yet know if the walls are closing in on Donald Trump—for the former president to be in significant legal trouble it would take a degree of …

Read more

{Note: This is Part 1 of an ongoing series in the January 6 section at Proof. Part 2 is due soon.}

Introduction

One difficulty journalists face in writing about Alex Jones is that the man produces so much content daily that sifting through it all is nearly impossible. Those who do are richly rewarded, however; on Jones’s nightly Infowars program (The Alex…

Read more

Introduction

Yesterday the House January 6 Committee subpoenaed someone who very few people in America have heard of: Kimberly Fletcher, a leader of the far-right insurrectionist group Moms for America. According to domestic terrorist Ali Alexander—one of the primary Stop the Steal leaders, along with Trump friend and adviser Roger Stone and Trump ally Alex Jones—Fletcher was integral to Stop the Steal’s organizing efforts in November of 2020, following Trump’s defeat in the November 3 presidential election.

But it’s a nexus between Fletcher and Alexander on Insurrection Eve—January 5, 2021—that may be the most important component of the testimony Fletcher is now likely to provide to Congress in January 2022: specifically, what was said between her and Alexander before and after she invited him to speak to her group outside the Capitol.

Indeed, when the House January 6 Committee deposed Alexander for eight hours this past Thursday, Proof hopes it had access to the full text of his January 5 speech before the Capitol, as it may well constitute one of the most critical public confessions in the whole of the January 6 insurrection timeline.

“Operation Occupy the Capitol” and “Fort Trump”

Long-since deleted from YouTube for violating the site’s Terms of Service, a video of Alexander’s mid-day speech outside the Capitol on January 5 was located by a sharp-eyed Proof reader.

So why is this particular video so important? Because it appears to be Ali Alexander’s public acknowledgment of the “Occupy the Capitol” plot Proof reported on weeks ago.

Read more

Read more

Read more

captionedImage

button

Join call

bullet_list

• Macro structure: HODLer buying has soften recently with this month’s price pull back, however long term holders remain in a region of peak accumulation. Structurally we are still in a bullish macro region. Despite bearish price action the underlying structure has no signs of a bear market.

• Short term: HODLers have been buying the dip. Coins are moving off the exchanges. Coins held by HODLers have been rising, recovering from recent weakness. Our on-chain Supply Shock valuation model implies BTC is presently trading at a $6k+ discount.

• Data from derivative exchanges is showing an uptick in demand, a bullish divergence has formed suggesting the bottom may be in.

• BTC price action expectation: Price recovery from lows with further consolidation over the weeks of December.

• Price action conviction: Medium.

blockquote

Scenario 2: OPEN below 4504. I think this scenario could be bearish one especially if we fail to take out 4504 within the IB period + trade below 4480. IB is the first hour of trade. In this case my target will be 4462. An impulse move may test NFP lows around 4440.

youtube2

horizontal_rule

ordered_list

2. If that was not enough, there is a lot of news flow and event risk. At this point, a strong NFP is a liability. A weak NFP may be good for stocks but should not be at the cost of sagging wage inflation.

3. Expecting balance conditions unless a close above or below my 4536 or 4480.

embeddedPost

Gideon's Substack

Requiem For a Liberal Internationalism That Never Really Was

Chamber of the United Nations Security Council…

Read more

4 years ago · 7 likes · Noah Millman

subscribeWidget

spotify2

opensea

Winter Bear #4394Winter Bears

Winter Bears is a collection of 10,000 adorable and unique polar bear NFTs available on the Ethereum blockchain. One Winter Bears token is your ticket to future drops, events, and much much more. Joi…

Created by WinterBearsDeployerView on OpenSea

instagram

image2

vimeo

footnote

paragraph

THIS NEWSLETTER IS COPYRIGHT © 2021 BY UNIQUE TEXT OFFERINGS (HK) LTD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Vivamus et ultricies nisi. Vestibulum aliquet aliquam ultricies. Fusce et erat in felis condimentum tempus. Sed et erat nisl. Nunc purus urna, ornare non vehicula ut, consectetur nec lorem. Nulla condimentum blandit dapibus. Ut vitae purus ac velit elementum volutpat eu at ex. Duis sapien arcu, auctor a purus eget, pellentesque pharetra est. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. Morbi fringilla pulvinar neque, a iaculis risus hendrerit eget.

Sed sed blandit mi, sit amet mollis justo. Sed a quam a ipsum tincidunt faucibus. Cras eu tellus ut metus facilisis mattis a ut purus. Suspendisse ultricies, lacus vel interdum dignissim, tortor sem commodo nulla, a pulvinar turpis risus id augue. Etiam sodales, lacus suscipit egestas interdum, libero tortor posuere est, ac sagittis ante ipsum sit amet risus. Proin vehicula accumsan purus in volutpat. Aenean feugiat augue at ullamcorper accumsan. Suspendisse non faucibus sem. Vestibulum molestie interdum ultricies.

Nam massa turpis, egestas at semper ut, viverra at eros. Aliquam finibus mollis metus, non auctor orci blandit ut. Praesent erat arcu, mattis ac pretium vel, porta hendrerit est. Donec convallis sed nulla quis condimentum. Suspendisse est mauris, fermentum sit amet ipsum vitae, maximus fringilla tellus. Morbi ornare purus et cursus hendrerit. Sed eu odio vestibulum, dignissim nulla nec, porta nibh. Aliquam in odio at enim laoreet accumsan sed vel eros. Aenean finibus orci est, vitae efficitur elit iaculis id.

Interdum et malesuada fames ac ante ipsum primis in faucibus. Duis id vulputate orci. Cras luctus molestie sem, vitae posuere odio elementum mollis. Duis et tortor at urna finibus ullamcorper in vel enim. Vivamus non lacinia lacus, tempus porta orci. Curabitur laoreet neque condimentum, ornare eros ut, bibendum nibh. Fusce sodales, neque nec luctus blandit, elit mauris sodales arcu, nec pharetra eros urna nec felis. Praesent vitae metus nec purus eleifend laoreet. Cras lacinia augue a metus sodales, sed scelerisque nisi tempus. Maecenas cursus quam vel arcu varius aliquet. Etiam tempor dictum velit, at aliquet justo fermentum vehicula.

Vivamus et ultricies nisi. Vestibulum aliquet aliquam ultricies. Fusce et erat in felis condimentum tempus. Sed et erat nisl. Nunc purus urna, ornare non vehicula ut, consectetur nec lorem. Nulla condimentum blandit dapibus. Ut vitae purus ac velit elementum volutpat eu at ex. Duis sapien arcu, auctor a purus eget, pellentesque pharetra est. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. Morbi fringilla pulvinar neque, a iaculis risus hendrerit eget.

Sed sed blandit mi, sit amet mollis justo. Sed a quam a ipsum tincidunt faucibus. Cras eu tellus ut metus facilisis mattis a ut purus. Suspendisse ultricies, lacus vel interdum dignissim, tortor sem commodo nulla, a pulvinar turpis risus id augue. Etiam sodales, lacus suscipit egestas interdum, libero tortor posuere est, ac sagittis ante ipsum sit amet risus. Proin vehicula accumsan purus in volutpat. Aenean feugiat augue at ullamcorper accumsan. Suspendisse non faucibus sem. Vestibulum molestie interdum ultricies.

Nam massa turpis, egestas at semper ut, viverra at eros. Aliquam finibus mollis metus, non auctor orci blandit ut. Praesent erat arcu, mattis ac pretium vel, porta hendrerit est. Donec convallis sed nulla quis condimentum. Suspendisse est mauris, fermentum sit amet ipsum vitae, maximus fringilla tellus. Morbi ornare purus et cursus hendrerit. Sed eu odio vestibulum, dignissim nulla nec, porta nibh. Aliquam in odio at enim laoreet accumsan sed vel eros. Aenean finibus orci est, vitae efficitur elit iaculis id.

Interdum et malesuada fames ac ante ipsum primis in faucibus. Duis id vulputate orci. Cras luctus molestie sem, vitae posuere odio elementum mollis. Duis et tortor at urna finibus ullamcorper in vel enim. Vivamus non lacinia lacus, tempus porta orci. Curabitur laoreet neque condimentum, ornare eros ut, bibendum nibh. Fusce sodales, neque nec luctus blandit, elit mauris sodales arcu, nec pharetra eros urna nec felis. Praesent vitae metus nec purus eleifend laoreet. Cras lacinia augue a metus sodales, sed scelerisque nisi tempus. Maecenas cursus quam vel arcu varius aliquet. Etiam tempor dictum velit, at aliquet justo fermentum vehicula.

Read more