Patrick Byrne is an interesting guy, and seems to carefully present what he believes to be the truth. Whether it in fact IS the truth is another matter, since critical aspects occur outside his personal observation (he does not pretend otherwise). My best interpretation is that he was used, set up, and frequently lied to by IC operatives.
From the article, re: the Hillary bribery sting:
“They told me who it [it = the prior bribe] was from (a foreign government) and how it was done. The FBI agents in New York had leveraged that information to force Comey to sign off on setting Hillary up in a bribery sting.”
Byrne no doubt believes this. But if NY agents had enough evidence against Hillary to “leverage” Comey, why would they need another sting? How could they rely on Comey not to warn Hillary? Or burn those “leveraging” him?
His handlers might have told Byrne the sting was cancelled, but were they lying to him? Seems more likely to me that Byrne was used to facilitate a bribe, then told it really never happened. How would he know? Since Hillary lost the election, the supposed policy “pro” after the “quid” was not in her power to grant. Why would the briber give millions away before the election instead of waiting a short while for a sure thing?
Probably to cover the FBI and Intell yracks, which they did.