PDF Summary:Danger Close, by Patrick Byrne

Patrick Byrne's life has followed an extraordinary path from humble beginnings to prominence as an entrepreneur and influential figure. In Danger Close, Byrne gives an inside look at his journey, from launching billion-dollar online retailer Overstock.com to battling corruption on Wall Street.

Byrne recounts a web of secretive governmental operations, from aiding diplomacy efforts in Vietnam to his covert involvement with the Russian collusion investigation and the 2020 election. Byrne makes bold claims of electoral fraud and clandestine forces working to undermine democratic processes. Whether you find Byrne's assertions credible or questionable, his narrative offers a gripping perspective on recent turbulent events.

(continued)...

Patrick Byrne's involvement with Maria Butina, a student from Russia, was part of a wider effort to counteract spying activities by entities in the United States.

Byrne recounts his intricate dealings with Maria Butina, a Russian graduate student who made her way to the United States in 2015. They initially encountered each other at a libertarian conference in the city famous for gambling and lively evening entertainment, where they were scheduled to give main speeches. Byrne maintains that Butina's objective was to establish ties with prominent figures in American politics, among them Donald Trump, who was then vigorously pursuing the presidency.

Byrne conveyed Butina's advances to American authorities in 2015, yet he asserts that subsequently, the government exploited his position to oversee and influence Butina's actions to serve their own objectives.

Byrne promptly informed U.S. officials of his dealings with Butina, in line with the obligations linked to his access to sensitive information. Despite initially doubting her intentions, he maintains that he was instructed to continue his involvement with her, a situation that inadvertently entangled him in a sophisticated counterintelligence mission orchestrated by a secretive government agency. He asserts that the authorities utilized him as a tool to keep track of her movements and create circumstances that resulted in her capture. Byrne contends that the tale of "Russian Collusion" was intentionally concocted to damage the credibility of Republican politicians.

Patrick Byrne was tasked with organizing a financial transaction directed to Hillary Clinton, which he believed was actually a scheme designed to entrap her, although it was officially described as part of a sting operation.

Patrick Byrne reveals a shocking revelation: he was approached by government officials who sought his assistance in orchestrating an operation presented as a trap, involving the proposition of an $18 million inducement to Hillary Clinton. However, he claims that after successfully orchestrating the bribe, he was ordered to "forget" the entire operation. He later uncovered that the true purpose of the financial inducement was to secure sway over Clinton should she ascend to the presidency.

Patrick Byrne encountered considerable pressure designed to deter him from revealing details he believes point to a financial plot to influence the Clintons, which he considers part of a broader plot to undermine the political order.

Byrne perceived the threat to his life as genuine and credible should he disclose any details regarding the bribery scheme involving Clinton. He firmly believes that the alleged Russian scandal and subsequent pressure tactics were elements of a wider plot by deep-rooted government groups aiming to influence the political scene and maintain control over the administration, regardless of the election results. Byrne's encounters solidified his conviction that the commanders he reported to lacked scruples, willing to compromise democratic processes for their own goals.

Other Perspectives

• The extent of Byrne's role in scrutinizing Russian collusion may be overstated, as multiple agencies and individuals were involved in these investigations, and it's unclear how central his role was.
• Byrne's perception of his involvement with Maria Butina could be influenced by his own biases or misunderstandings of the situation, and there may be alternative explanations for the events that transpired.
• The claim that the government exploited Byrne's position could be challenged by the lack of publicly available evidence supporting his assertion, and it could be argued that any actions taken by the government were part of standard counterintelligence procedures.
• The notion that Byrne was tasked with organizing a financial transaction as a trap for Hillary Clinton lacks corroboration from independent sources, and without such evidence, it remains an allegation.
• The idea that there was a broader plot to undermine the political order is a serious accusation that would require substantial evidence, which has not been presented in a way that allows for public scrutiny and verification.

The story recounts Patrick Byrne's efforts to disrupt the plans of a clandestine group intent on toppling the government.

The narrative describes the author's use of his unique ties to government figures and a special authorization that provided him with exceptional freedom to combat what he perceived as an attempted coup.

In 2006, the Senate Judiciary Committee tasked Byrne with the objective of combating the widespread corruption infiltrating the United States government institutions.

In 2006, a significant turning point in his life took place when Senator Orrin Hatch initiated contact with him, leading to dialogues with seven other senators from a range of political parties, including Arlen Specter, who at that time presided over the Senate Judiciary Committee. In a confidential gathering, Byrne received authorization that allowed him exceptional scope within the framework of U.S. law to probe and interfere with governmental corruption. The increasing unease among influential circles stemmed from Byrne's well-known ability to detect and challenge the rising levels of corruption within the government.

Patrick Byrne was chosen for the operation because he was willing to use what might be described as "extreme" tactics to achieve his goals.

The mission was assigned to Byrne due to his reputation for taking bold and definitive steps to achieve objectives. The legislators acknowledged his atypical methods and understood that the completion of his mission could surpass the duration of their tenure or even outlast them. Patrick Byrne embraced the difficult duty, considering it his duty to protect the stability and fundamental frameworks of the U.S. government.

Patrick Byrne asserts that he devised a plan which involved concocting a tale of sexual assault and murder to trap individuals linked to the allegations of Russian interference and the inquiry into Clinton's actions.

Upon recognizing the intricate workings of the entrenched, secretive government entities, Byrne sensed a strong obligation to take action. He intentionally misled his FBI associates by fabricating a story about his interactions with Butina, falsely asserting his involvement in administering poison, committing sexual assault, and issuing deadly threats against her. Determined to halt the clandestine activities of certain power-seekers in government, Patrick Byrne decided to confront them with fabricated misdeeds, thereby exposing their willingness to endorse any action, no matter how malevolent, to achieve their objectives.

The approach forced those in power to abandon their plans or risk becoming ensnared in a fabricated offense.

Byrne contends that while appearing to partake in illegal activities, he revealed the willingness of senior government officials to overlook such conduct when it served their political goals. Despite his concocted admissions, the operation persisted, showcasing their indifference to legal norms and their dedication to consolidating their authority.

Other Perspectives

• The use of "extreme" tactics by Byrne could be ethically questionable and potentially undermine the rule of law, which is fundamental to a stable government.
• The Senate Judiciary Committee's decision to task Byrne with such a mission, if true, could be seen as an abdication of their own responsibilities and a reliance on extrajudicial methods.
• The narrative suggests a level of unilateral authority and action that may not align with democratic principles and checks and balances.
• Fabricating a story of sexual assault and murder is a serious ethical violation and could potentially harm innocent parties or undermine legitimate investigations.
• Byrne's approach could be criticized for potentially entraping individuals, which is a controversial and legally dubious tactic.
• The effectiveness and legality of Byrne's methods in combating corruption could be questioned, as they may not adhere to due process.
• The claim that Byrne's actions forced those in power to abandon their plans could be seen as an oversimplification of complex political dynamics and may not account for other factors that could have influenced the outcome.
• The narrative could be challenged on the grounds of lacking corroborative evidence, as such extraordinary claims typically require substantial proof.

The narrative offers an account from Patrick Byrne's viewpoint regarding the integrity of the electoral process in 2020.

The narrative explores Patrick Byrne's fundamental convictions regarding the sanctity of electoral procedures, underscoring his post-2020 activist endeavors and claims of extensive electoral discrepancies.

The catalyst for Patrick Byrne's involvement in the movement for electoral integrity was the moment cybersecurity experts, whom he dubbed "dolphin-speakers," highlighted the vulnerabilities present in the systems and processes utilized during elections.

Byrne attributes his participation in the movement for election integrity to his engagement with a cadre of cybersecurity specialists he refers to as "dolphin-speakers." Experts uncovered extensive vulnerabilities within the electoral systems and processes of the United States. Byrne spent several weeks thoroughly reviewing technical documents and promotional literature for voting systems, expressing concerns about a database designed with multiple layers that lacked measures to ensure consistency of data throughout its tables, as well as other questionable features that indicated potential for tampering and abuse.

Byrne points out inconsistencies in vote counts, the halting of vote counting in key cities of battleground states, and the refusal of some local officials to allow scrutiny of the voting equipment as signs of potential election improprieties during the presidential contest of that year.

Patrick Byrne argues that the 2020 election experienced interference, citing a range of irregularities and peculiar events as evidence for his assertion. He examines the improbable statistical results, highlighting how counties known as strong indicators for electoral trends favored Trump, but the states where these counties are located ultimately were tallied in favor of Biden. He emphasizes the remarkable cessation of vote counting in six key urban locations across swing states, which occurred soon after the polling stations closed, suggesting that this simultaneous interruption was a clear sign of tampering with the voting process. Byrne emphasizes the importance of the abrupt pause in vote tallying while also noting that five disputed regions refused thorough inspections of their electoral equipment, which he views as an unmistakable indication of deliberate malfeasance. He interprets their opposition as unmistakable indications of concealment.

Patrick Byrne believes that the combined actions of the government and media have resulted in the downplaying of concerns about election integrity, ultimately resulting in his characterization as someone with radical views within his own country.

Authorities and the media have deliberately minimized and disregarded claims of electoral fraud, effectively suppressing dissent and labeling those who question the established order as radicals or rebels. Patrick Byrne reproaches both the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation for their failure to thoroughly investigate the concerns he and others have voiced, and he views the media's superficial examination of the electoral process's integrity as indicative of an intentional effort to maintain a misleading story. Patrick Byrne is of the opinion that this type of categorization is intended to discourage those who question the official narrative from further investigating the electoral procedures of 2020.

Patrick Byrne argues that the outright denial of audit or inspection requests is a definitive indication of underlying issues in the voting system.

Byrne views the lack of external examination and independent verification of election systems as a significant sign of widespread corruption. He contends that the concept of ensuring fair elections necessitates both openness and responsibility. Established institutions' resistance towards the actions Byrne advocates for adds weight to his claims regarding the questionable reliability of the electoral system. He believes that trust in the electoral system can only be restored through a thorough and open examination of the procedures and technologies used in the casting and counting of votes.

Other Perspectives

• The vulnerabilities highlighted by cybersecurity experts do not necessarily indicate that an election was compromised; vulnerabilities are a risk factor but not proof of fraud.
• Concerns about database design flaws and potential for tampering must be substantiated with concrete evidence that tampering occurred, not just that it was possible.
• Inconsistencies in vote counts and the halting of vote counting can occur for legitimate reasons, such as ensuring accuracy in reporting and adherence to legal procedures.
• The refusal of scrutiny of voting equipment could be due to legal, privacy, or security reasons rather than an indication of impropriety.
• The characterization of individuals as radical may stem from the manner in which they present their arguments or the lack of credible evidence supporting their claims, rather than a concerted effort by the government or media to suppress dissent.
• The Department of Justice and FBI have criteria and protocols for initiating investigations, and not all concerns may meet the threshold required for federal investigation.
• Denial of audit or inspection requests could be due to legal restrictions, concerns over the integrity of the audit process, or the qualifications of those requesting the audit.
• Trust in the electoral system is complex and may not be fully restored by audits alone, especially if the audits are conducted in a partisan or non-transparent manner.
• The integrity of an election involves numerous safeguards, and the presence of some issues does not necessarily invalidate the entire process.

Patrick Byrne established relationships with prominent figures including Steve Bannon and William Barr.

In this segment of the narrative, the writer reflects on his dealings with two prominent political figures, viewing one as a potential opponent and pondering the prospect of collaboration with the Attorney General.

In 2020, Patrick Byrne received a grave caution from former Attorney General William Barr, indicating the possibility of his confinement in a federal emergency management institution under specific circumstances.

In 2020, Patrick Byrne received a warning from then-Attorney General William Barr about the risk of being detained in FEMA camps, a situation that might arise if they were unable to suppress a looming rebellion. Patrick Byrne draws a correlation between the untimely death of an intermediary in August 2020 and a subsequent noticeable drop in the vigor of Fox News's coverage of the then-President of the United States.

Patrick Byrne believes that the way Barr managed investigations related to the 2020 election suggests his participation in an alleged deep state coup.

Byrne details a series of choices and events led by the chief legal officer of the government, emphasizing his choice to halt investigations into alleged voting irregularities, his downplaying of these irregularities as not being "widespread", and his contradictory remarks about thorough DOJ inquiries, which subsequent Freedom of Information Act requests revealed to be unsubstantiated. Patrick Byrne suggests that Barr was involved in clandestine activities orchestrated by influential, clandestine organizations, aimed at eroding the credibility of the voting system, signaling a deliberate effort to obscure instances of electoral fraud.

Steve Bannon, while holding similar views on many topics, has actively attempted to diminish Patrick Byrne's influence and sideline him.

The author narrates his complex and often difficult interactions with a political figure who, despite having similar ideological views, presents challenges. Patrick Byrne reveals efforts by Bannon to damage his good name and persuade those within the political circles of Washington to ostracize him, as well as to label him as someone who is unreliable. Byrne narrates multiple instances where Bannon sought to undermine his credibility by spreading emails and other communications to journalists, urging them to disregard Byrne's assertions.

Byrne speculates that the covert operations and interactions with governmental agencies could be the underlying cause of Bannon's resentment.

Byrne explores the underlying elements that lead to the hostility associated with Bannon, providing multiple reasons. Patrick Byrne suggests that envy could be the motivation behind Bannon's behavior, considering Byrne's deeper connections with government agencies in the United States. Byrne also hints at disreputable elements that might make Bannon apprehensive about the potential revelation of his history. Byrne presents a compelling viewpoint that depicts Bannon as a foe working against him, despite their shared political beliefs, while allowing readers to form their own judgments.

Other Perspectives

• Patrick Byrne's interpretation of his interactions with William Barr and Steve Bannon is subjective and may not reflect the intentions or perspectives of those individuals.
• The warning from William Barr about potential confinement could be a standard legal caution rather than an indication of a specific threat or targeted action against Byrne.
• The notion of a "deep state coup" is a controversial and disputed claim that lacks concrete evidence and is often associated with conspiracy theories; alternative explanations could include standard procedural decisions by the Department of Justice.
• Steve Bannon's efforts to diminish Byrne's influence could be interpreted as political strategy rather than personal resentment, and may align with Bannon's own objectives or understanding of political dynamics.
• Byrne's speculation about Bannon's motives could be unfounded and not reflective of Bannon's actual concerns or actions.
• The correlation Byrne draws between the death of an intermediary and changes in Fox News's coverage could be coincidental and not causally linked.
• The suggestion that Barr's management of election-related investigations was part of a larger clandestine operation could be challenged by the lack of substantiated evidence to support such a claim.