Is Brunson going to be a case where fraud evidence gets presented? It feels very technical and hinges more on a lack of action. But how do you determine the lack of action was negligent without some evidence?
Do the Brunsons even have the means to present compelling evidence from the affected states? Wouldn't they need to be broadly partnered to make a compelling argument?
I haven’t really looked into the Brunson case but I believe that is not a trial to prove election fraud, but rather about how Congress did not uphold their duty to perform a 10-day review of the alternate electors’ claims.
There is no such constitutional "duty" for Congress to perform a "10 day review." The Constitution does not authorize Congress with any power to adjudicate presidential Electoral disputes, except to appoint a court/tribunal specifically tasked with handling such cases. This is a judicial matter. Always has been.
Adjudication of the presidential Electoral dispute was not Congress's responsibility because the body lacks any constitutional authority to do so. The STATE LEGISLATURES are responsible for allowing or worse instructing their executive (Gov or Sec of State) to unlawfully appoint Electors who didn't actually win. The only body with the constitutional authority to adjudicate such judicial matters, is the Court. Because no lower tribunal has explicitly been tasked with such cases, original jurisdiction lies with SCOTUS.
It has nothing to do with fraud. This is all based on national security, which leads to treason. Stop thinking this is about "dems stole the election by doing xyz.", it has nothing to do with that and that's why SCOTUS has given it standing. Fraud cases like you're describing have no standing with SCOTUS and will get kicked back to a lower court, like they have already.
Correct. Not fraud, but conspiratorial attacks on national security, aided by members of our government and foreign agents. We're talking acts of treason, insurrection, rebellion and war.
Exactly. Fraud in the election is not part of this at all, and it can't be. They got this far because the entire case was framed around national security. If it goes to a full 9 Judge hearing the defense will try the immunity clause bullshit which won't work in this case because in cases of treason and national security immunity does not apply. 1/6 will be huge, no doubt. I expect this to move to a full hearing and I expect it to not pass with 4 but 9.
I very much hope that happens, but I'm far more convinced it won't go to review. And assuming it doesn't, we'd again have SCOTUS refusing their constitutional duty. Which means all legal remedies have been exercised, leaving only one path left...
It's been my contention that evidence of election fraud has to be presented, and proven, along with proving that the House members knew of it, in order for them to be held negligent in going through with validation of the election. So, even if they lose the case on the grounds of the Reps saying, "we didn't know", the proof of election fraud will be made public.
Is Brunson going to be a case where fraud evidence gets presented? It feels very technical and hinges more on a lack of action. But how do you determine the lack of action was negligent without some evidence?
Do the Brunsons even have the means to present compelling evidence from the affected states? Wouldn't they need to be broadly partnered to make a compelling argument?
I haven’t really looked into the Brunson case but I believe that is not a trial to prove election fraud, but rather about how Congress did not uphold their duty to perform a 10-day review of the alternate electors’ claims.
There is no such constitutional "duty" for Congress to perform a "10 day review." The Constitution does not authorize Congress with any power to adjudicate presidential Electoral disputes, except to appoint a court/tribunal specifically tasked with handling such cases. This is a judicial matter. Always has been.
Ok. So what Congress did in the disputed 1876 presidential election was not required to be done in 2020?
https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/educational-resources/disputed-election-1876
You already asked this question, which I already answered.
https://greatawakening.win/p/16ZqKp8V3J/x/c/4ToiWKNkZbl
Adjudication of the presidential Electoral dispute was not Congress's responsibility because the body lacks any constitutional authority to do so. The STATE LEGISLATURES are responsible for allowing or worse instructing their executive (Gov or Sec of State) to unlawfully appoint Electors who didn't actually win. The only body with the constitutional authority to adjudicate such judicial matters, is the Court. Because no lower tribunal has explicitly been tasked with such cases, original jurisdiction lies with SCOTUS.
It has nothing to do with fraud. This is all based on national security, which leads to treason. Stop thinking this is about "dems stole the election by doing xyz.", it has nothing to do with that and that's why SCOTUS has given it standing. Fraud cases like you're describing have no standing with SCOTUS and will get kicked back to a lower court, like they have already.
Correct. Not fraud, but conspiratorial attacks on national security, aided by members of our government and foreign agents. We're talking acts of treason, insurrection, rebellion and war.
Exactly. Fraud in the election is not part of this at all, and it can't be. They got this far because the entire case was framed around national security. If it goes to a full 9 Judge hearing the defense will try the immunity clause bullshit which won't work in this case because in cases of treason and national security immunity does not apply. 1/6 will be huge, no doubt. I expect this to move to a full hearing and I expect it to not pass with 4 but 9.
I very much hope that happens, but I'm far more convinced it won't go to review. And assuming it doesn't, we'd again have SCOTUS refusing their constitutional duty. Which means all legal remedies have been exercised, leaving only one path left...
IMO, DJT/White Hats are the one running the show behind the scenes and they have all the means!
https://greatawakening.win/p/16ZXet46rq/scotus-brunson-v-adams-22380-cas/
It's been my contention that evidence of election fraud has to be presented, and proven, along with proving that the House members knew of it, in order for them to be held negligent in going through with validation of the election. So, even if they lose the case on the grounds of the Reps saying, "we didn't know", the proof of election fraud will be made public.