Understood, but you're not taking into account his background. He's helped with the feddies before. That makes a huge difference. Those other times he's helped, nothing's gone awry, but this time, something did in that he received those "fishy" orders to reconnect with Maria Butina.

And, again, he's ''guessing'' at what happened. Have you ever been in a position either at work or in your personal life where you had to put pieces together to figure out what the hell is going on? I'm certain it must have happened in your role on Voat. You've had to run into times when you had fragments of a story, but not the entire one so you had to guess. Weren't your guesses sometimes really, really flawed? And looking back, didn't you seem a little bit flaky because you weren't psychic and couldn't put everything together flawlessly?

I know I've been there and done that and it seems to be where this guy is. But he does cough up names. And Comey is responding. And we don't know WTH Byrne had that he turned over to the DOJ. That's the unknown for us to make a really knowledgeable assessment. My best guess is that it leads straight to FISA and leverage for Barr to get to those reports being withheld by Wray.

But if we take your spin on things, okay, let's speculate that Byrne is being blackmailed. Okay, why have him come forward with this? A distraction? If it's a distraction, it's a pretty strange one since he loses his entire company in coming forth knowing that the distraction isn't going to last long. I mean, if he comes out with another statement in the next couple of weeks and the DOJ never responds regarding what he's dropped off? Or the indie ''friendly to Trump'' journalists never get a leak to tell us the DOJ is finding something pretty damned interesting in what Byrne dropped off, then Byrne goes away. He's history ... he drops in that memory hole where others before him have slid into obscurity and for what? Since this is your scenario, you tell me what they have to gain to do this? I'm assuming you mean Comey & Co. so why did they have him come forward and tell his story, when what he's really saying is that the FBI committed treason by infiltrating three presidential campaigns WITH NO CRIME. Remember, there was no crime they were following up on, and for the FBI to investigate and infiltrate private citizens, citizens that were, again, running for president, they would be committing treason because of what was at stake. It would be proof of them working for info to blackmail these individuals or control them? So how does floating a ''fake'' story about what is most likely a ''true'' story, in that, they most likely did try to do this, helping anyone? All it's presenting to people the possibility that this happened. But maybe you have a reason so I'm more than eager to hear. Why? What did they hope to gain? And why blow a huge asset like Byrne on something trivial that really works against them?

Probably best.

I don't even knows if Byrne realizes what was done. That's the other thing that's coming out through his interviews.