"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. The Constitution requires a two-thirds supermajority to convict a person being impeached."
So I just did the math and realized that the number of members of Congress who are respondents in the Brunson Case are: 291/435 for House which is 66.9% (more than two-thirds) and 94/100 for Senate which is 94% (again more than two-thirds) which is the minimum number required as per constitution for conviction after impeachment. Can it just be a coincidence or do these numbers mean something? Does it give extra power to SCOTUS to remove these members while ruling on the Brunson Case?
Wipe the slate clean. We’ll start over.
I agree. Enough is enough. I watched a video in 2017 I believe it was. A young military man said, "Be prepared to elect new leadership from the ground up. " That resonated with me. I wish I could find it now but I don't remember the title. It has me curious if this case is related to the video.
Not all those who were there in 2020 still are. What about the rest? Honestly, this case seems to me more huge than you all imagine, just banging on those members of Congress. The crux of it is about keeping an oath. Our whole society and laws are built around keeping oaths. If Congress doesn't have to keep an oath to the Constitution, why should anyone be punished for lying in court? What's the point of secular marriage vows? Why would anyone carry through on any contract if they could leave it without penalty? This is so fundamental I think the Supremes will not take it.
My understanding is that the SCOTUS will have to stop the clock at the certification day. IMO, everything that happened post certification will need to be reversed including inauguration of JB!
IF.THEY.TAKE.IT. IF.THEY.RULE.IN.FAVOR. I see a lot of people taking out mortgages on air castles over this case. When they say they will consider the case, I'll allow myself a tiny smidgen of hope.
Its world wide. Every nook and cranny
The dependence of civil order on honor? Well, some very powerful parties are without honor and always a trap to the honorable, otherwise I agree. It seems so obvious I can't see how the Supremes could fail to affirm that. Just, not very confident in them any more.
The defendants are accused by their specific action in this case, not by who they are or party they represent. The only co-ordination of who the defendants are is their vote to move forward with certification of the elections which took a majority vote.
This case is all about National Security and the members' breach of contract with the American people. They broke their oath of office when they voted to certify the election results of 2020 KNOWING that there was evidence of election fraud both foreign & domestic.
The SCOTUS will hold conference on this case an 6, 2023 and if by 4 SCOTUS vote rule, they can hear this case. It moves forward quickly as a matter of National Security! The SCOTUS could actually rule and have these 385 members who broke their contract (oath to uphold the Constitution & laws thereof) with the people they represent. SCOTUS shall remove them from office, never to hold public office again!
This could be a jaw dropping moment in American History and unprecedented Constitutional law being set down! (And it would 'eliminate' the corrupt members of the swamp!)
Q told us.
It's to be decided by the supreme court, so I wouldn't think congress's voting percentages would matter in this case.
Yes that should be the case. But isn't it surprising that 291 is the minimum number required for impeachment and here we have 291 members of the House who are the defendants in the Brunson case?
If DJT is running the show (https://greatawakening.win/p/16ZXet46rq/scotus-brunson-v-adams-22380-cas/), then it could very well be that few members were added from the Republican side to reach that magic number of 291.
Trap laid by DJT/White Hats?
Q#1201 Apr 20, 2018 1:48:56 PM EST (Apr 20- another reference to Donald Trump)
Answer Q re: SR.
SR June JA.
Now….
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/04/20/democratic-party-files-federal-lawsuit-alleging-conspiracy-by-trump-campaign-russia-wikileaks-to-disrupt-2016-presidential-election.html
Coincidence?
TRAP CARD played…nice work Q
TRUMP card coming.
Q
I'm not sure I'm understanding you, but if I am, you are suggesting that the number arrived at is the magic number because 'a few were added from the republican side,' than that would be beyond unethical. The people named are specifically those who broke their oath to the constitution. Why in the world would DJT throw some innocent members under the bus just to make up the numbers? The overall number of people named is, I think, 335.
Yes you are right. It is just a wild guess that may be few trusted members agreed to sacrifice their position for the greater good on request of DJT so that the two-third majority could be reached, if at all that matters.
The overall number of defendants are 385 (291 House + 94 Senate) + Current President & VP+ Ex VP- so total 388!
Okay, that's more than I thought. I thought I'd heard it was in the 330s. Anyway, I personally do believe this case has merit. Not only merit, but that it requires the obvious finding from the court. We shall see.
I don’t have much confidence in this. There is no equal justice under the law. Laws are not being followed or enforced.
I wonder if Brunson is nothing more than a sort of publicly known, "nuclear option" the white hats? Possible one of many?
If the cabal escalates beyond the rules of engagement, Brunson comes into play. As long as cabal operates within rules of engagement we continue the slow drizzle.
It makes sense that an information war would have the equivalent of nuclear weapons in a physical war.
That is also possible but if you have to clean the entire house in one go (Democrats + RINO's), this seems to be the best and safest option without any civil unrest!
It'd definitely be good to round them up at the same time and have some from each side remaining. I can see some like Simena, Cortez, and Ro Khanna from the Dems making the cut.
But traitors have been getting purged for multiple years now and forced into retirement. Sometimes it pays to just look how far we've come.
u/#q1850
I remember people (rightfully) complaining that we'd never get anything done w/out McConnell removed and now look what turtle-like traitor is finally in the public eye for facilitating the recent theft of $1.7 trillion from the US?
Link below not news but the next thing we need to have our eye on is who replaces McConnell and whether he is removed electorally or through public shame or illness or other. Hard to imagine that he'd be in through 2026...
Just my opinion, and maybe I'm wrong, but I think it was stupid to name that many defendents. It will make it harder to get a judgment, if even one can prove they are innocent. Unless the SC can make judgement on one at a time individually, I don't see them winning.
The only thing is that they are being charged for the same cause of action. They all refused to carry out investigation and, in the process, violated their oath. I don't know how even one of them can prove that they are innocent while others are not. IMO, given the circumstances, it has to be either all of them are guilty or all of them are innocent!
Whats all this i am hearring about Brunson?
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/12/tim-canova-supreme-court-considers-case-seeking-overturn-2020-presidential-election/
That's way too good.to.be true!! Would be great though
The writer of the article is someone who teaches constitutional law. So one can safely assume that there is some merit in this case!
Yeah well there's tons of merit in kari lake's case and it was dismissed.