In the midst of the intricate dispute over U.S. election fraud, the latest to emerge is a detailed and powerful revelation from an election fraud investigator. The man is Patrick Byrne, who has emerged as an independent investigator, and his recent tweet tells the thrilling inside story of the 18th long session of the White House.
Byrne, who is also an American celebrity, was once the founder of the American e-commerce giant Overstock and has also worked intensively with U.S. intelligence agencies, according to the report. He also speaks Chinese, having studied at Beijing Normal University, and says he has a deep affection for China and its people, but has little good impression of the Chinese Communist Party. Bourne said he did not vote for Trump, but became an independent investigator of election fraud, not only attending pro-Trump conventions but also speaking on stage in high-profile speeches. Several recent interviews with the English-language Epoch Times byline on the progress of the election fraud investigation he is leading are of great interest.
The most powerful one so far is Bourne’s Dec. 20 Twitter post, in which he wrote that he personally attended a lengthy White House meeting on Dec. 18 in which he argued that President Trump’s advisers “want him to lose” the election and “are lying to him “. Bern said, “Trump is being lied to by his own advisers, who are stalling Trump on one side and telling staffers to ‘get the president to concede’ on the other.” Bourne even said, “I can assure you that these advisers to President Trump are doing a poor job” and “they want him to lose and are deceiving him. He’s surrounded by mediocre people who are deceiving him.”
Who are these White House staffers who are “lying” to Trump? The names Bern named were White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, White House counsel Pat Cipollone, and two lawyers, Eric and Derek, whom he refers to only by their first names.
For the long White House meeting on Dec. 18, several U.S. mainstream anti-Trump positions also uncharacteristically immediately gave insider reports that President Trump and his staff discussed the option of “declaring martial law. In response to the report, Trump immediately rebutted it as false information afterwards. Bern, for his part, said the claims were “100 percent false. The disinformation from Powell’s lawyer, who was also present at the meeting, was expressed on Twitter on Dec. 20 as follows: “There was no discussion of a military coup by Donald Trump or anyone representing him,” and “the people who said that, including those around him, are liars. around, are liars.”
The following quotes also show how Bourne felt about the White House meeting, saying, “This is 100 percent winnable without martial law. Sidney and Flynn (the general) have proposed a course that I estimate has a 50 to 75 percent chance of winning. Instead his (Trump’s) handlers just tried to convince him to do nothing and accept the outcome of the election.” “As a CEO, it breaks my heart to watch what he’s going through. He’s being betrayed from within.”
And what about President Trump’s mindset? Bourne described it as the president “wanting to keep fighting,” but “Meadows, and the legal staff under Cipollon, would reflexively fight every sober discussion or idea that was presented.” “They have a frame of mind that automatically thinks this way: ‘We better not try this, it probably won’t work, it will damage your reputation in the media.'”
Bourne told the outside world: he “wasn’t kidding, they said that” and “they did everything they could to come up with reasons to tell him he couldn’t do anything.” Bourne believes: he (Trump) needs to fire all these people or he loses.”
Again, Bourne emphasized: the mindset he sees in President Trump is still one of non-concession, saying, “He (Trump) really (believes) he won, and he really did. I didn’t vote for him, but I also don’t want to see our country hijacked in a psychological war (PSYOP).” .
Here’s another look: the attitude of President Trump over the past two days after last Friday’s White House meeting. Just a day after the White House meeting on the 19th, President Trump tweeted his first call for his supporters to come to Washington for a protest rally on January 6 next year, the very day Congress is conducting its final certification process on the presidential election results. The day after the call, on Dec. 20, Trump said through the media that his team was “getting closer” to successfully challenging the election results in key battleground states. He said, “We’re getting closer and closer. I hope you [the media] let everybody know that we’re actually very close.” He added that “the fake news won’t tell you that. They don’t want to talk about it. They’re trying to suppress it. We don’t have freedom of the press at all. The press is being suppressed. It’s a terrible thing that’s happening in our country.”
Within the framework of the U.S. Constitution, has challenging the election results in key battleground states on Jan. 6 become the Trump team’s preferred option, if not the only option? Or will there be other complementary measures? Regardless of the White House insider, Trump has not conceded defeat because post-election surveys in swing states show he won. The next two weeks will be a test of the forces of goodwill in American politics and the private sector demanding a fair election, and a last chance to gather the collective strength of the Republican Party. It will undoubtedly be even more thrilling than the inside story of the White House described by Bourne.
Recent Comments