🤔⚖️🏛 The Truth About the Brunson Case 🤔⚖️🏛
(www.uncoverdc.com)
Comments (87)
sorted by:
I think we’ve learned not to put any stock in these court cases by now. We’ll see what happens.
Truth.
Yep. DOA.
I’m not saying it’s DOA. I’m not a lawyer either. I just find it curious.
Maybe it’s a legit case given the country’s current sit/ stat. I don’t know. Lots of strong opinions to wade through. We shall see.
I don’t understand why they would even file it if SCOTUS doesn’t have the standing to do anything. What is the point?
Agreed. Multiple people are making arguments against the Brunson SC case, and they all seem logical, except for a few small details.
WHY did the SC initially accept the Brunson case under Rule 11? Why did the SC accept the case at all?
WHY did the SC help to expedite the Brunson case and ask them to add more findings to it before it was submitted?
WHY did the SC ask the Brunsons to rush the submission of their case as soon as possible?
WHY did the SC accept the case to be voted on in conference immediately after it was submitted, and schedule the conference vote for ... Jan 6th?
Bottom line: if the critics are correct, the Brunson case should never have been accepted for a conference vote in the first place. The SC had multiple opportunities to easily ignore the case and just let it die. If the case has no merit, that would have been the logical and expected outcome.
Instead, the SC did the opposite at every stage of its progress. Why did the SC do all of those "illogical" things for a case that has no merit? If the critics are correct, then the behavior of the SC throughout this entire process makes no sense at all.
Edit: I forgot one - why did the solicitor general take over for all 388 defendants, and then immediately waive their right to contest the case for all of them? That was very interesting all by itself.
Agreed. The fact that it’s confusing to us tells me that it is accomplishing (at least one of) its goal(s)……to confuse the public.
Also, why are so many law experts supporting this case?
Check this video of a constitutional law expert explaining the complaint filed in the Brunson case in detail:
https://rumble.com/v235yf8-constitutional-law-part-ii-the-brunson-brothers-lawsuit-before-the-supreme-.html
Also, read this article from a professor teaching constitutional law:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/12/tim-canova-supreme-court-considers-case-seeking-overturn-2020-presidential-election/
Tim Canova is the 'guest post' Wow! He is the (formerly a Democrat) who ran against DWS in the primary a few years back now. I know this from my Bernie days. He knows how rotten our elections are. I take it as a good sign if he is somehow connected
Put them down on the list of people not to call when you want some legal advice. These people are not “experts” if they are finding merit here. I have no idea who that geezer is in the first video. I couldn’t get more than about 15 minutes in without falling asleep. He says absolutely nothing substantive here. His opening comments are asinine. “Lawyer vs. Attorney” and all this “constitutional mandate to investigate” is all bullshit. This guy couldn’t even find a place to put his camera where it didn’t show all this hoarding and shit everywhere…we are supposed to listen to him??
The second guy actually thinks this was accepted under rule 11. It wasn’t. Also nothing substantive in what he says. It’s all platitudes focused on righteous anger about unresolved election fraud. That isn’t a legal argument or a constitutional one.
You're probably right. You seem to know alot. What do you mean by it wasn't accepted under rule 11. Do you mean..."yet"...and that its that still to be determined?
Original jurisdiction cases as listed in article III of the constitution are rare. They happen, but the majority of cases that SCOTUS hears come from their appellate jurisdiction. Cases start at the district court level, and then advance to the circuit courts of appeals, and can be reviewed by SCOTUS. They get about 12,000 or so requests a year; of which they only hear about 100-120. Basically, less than 1% of petitions for writs of certiorari are granted. The rest are not heard.
Just about every state supreme court has the ability to take a case from the state appellate courts and hear it directly. They also have a process where the appellant can request the state supreme court hear it, bypassing the appellate court. The criteria for granting this varies by state.
SCOTUS rule 11 (not to be confused with civil procedure rule 11 which is sanctions) provides a framework to bypass the circuit appellate court and go directly to them. I cannot recall the last time I ever saw them grant this. It is not unheard of but it is rare.
No, they won't accept it under rule 11 because it isn't necessary. The 10th circuit ruled. You can't bypass the 10th circuit now; they already are on the record. Now it is on appeal from the 10th circuit.
There is a shocking disconnect here with basic fundamentals in our legal system. People aren't all lawyers. But high school civics should have taught people how this works. To believe all the stuff being said about this case, you would have to believe that the SCOTUS clerk's office act as gatekeepers to prevent or allow petitions for writs of certiorari to be filed. And that in this position, they magically know the most intimate details of your case out of the hundreds of thousands of active state and federal cases; so they can simply block you from the e-file system because they don't need to be briefed on the reasons you want the court to grant the writ. They are omniscient. They already know if your case is bunk or would be a viable appeal.
Bottom line is that in no court system ever are you pre-judged by the court on unfiled pleadings or petitions. The only way that any court will hear your case is if you file it. Unless you are a known abuser of the legal system (there are a few, but not many) court clerks simply accept your filings; presuming there are no deficiencies in what is required - filing fees, proper formatting (margins, word count etc), and the correct forms.
On the rule 11 issue, Brunson and others are basically acting as though the clerk letting them file under rule 11 is somehow the court accepting this. That is simply nonsense. How the hell could they decide this if they know nothing about the case and you didn't file the paperwork to ask them? A helluva lot of cope is going around that "well ya, they did, but then the 10th circuit ruled so it got changed..." Really? Where is the order granting their appeal under rule 11? It doesn't exist. Hence, never happened.
Essentially, because the SCOTUS clerk's office assisted them in filing their appeal, that is bizarrely being interpreted as some kind of sign that this case is going to be heard. Their job is to help people file. And unlike your local state or federal district court clerk's office, this is a fairly prestigious job. They don't staff it with apparatchiks that hate life and their job. So they are helpful. Not assholes. Every single case that gets heard or declined to be heard goes through this exact process with filing, conference, etc...and somehow because this is going through the same process as literally every single other case, people have been attributed unwarranted meaning to this. They will never tell you to fuck off, you are wasting everyone's time before ever seeing your filings. Ever.
Curious to hear your thoughts on this reply by Deron Brunson…
Dear Adam Carter & Tracy Beanz,
In regards to your article dated December 30, 2022 titled "The Truth About the Brunson Case" which is misnomer at best, it seems you purposely ignored the following controlling points in order to sustain your captured title. This is bad reporting and shouldn't ever be tolerated, in addition this article specifically follows as being an act of treason for the following reasons.
Deron Brunson
It is precisely because these people are off their rockers that it is impossible to cut through all of this hyperbole and get to the actual legal arguments. This lawsuit is literally fabricating a bogus legal argument and cloaking it in everyone’s righteous outrage about fraudulent elections. Just because this guy says “hey do something about this fraud” doesn’t mean that this is viable. And pointing this out is not “dooming.” I wouldn’t be surprised to find out this dude also makes “sovereign citizen” claims elsewhere.
And lots of people are saying he isn’t saying the election was fraudulent or Biden didn’t win. WTF? Read the complaint. All he does his talk about how Biden won fraudulently.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.utd.126764/gov.uscourts.utd.126764.6.1.pdf
Let’s start with his complaint. It’s 101 pages of utter gibberish with a 20 something page complaint and an attached exhibit of the congressional record. It is filled with a lot of true facts. It is also filled with a lot of editorializing. Because he has no idea what he is doing, he acts as though these facts support his causes of action. And people are reading that without getting to his claims for relief. Which is what matters. What cause of action do you have here, Brunson?
Claims:
I. Promissory Estoppel - (p.15)
This is unintelligible. It talks about treason and the right to vote. As if there was some kind agreement between him and all of these members. Promissory estoppel arises out of contract law. It has nothing to do with “right to vote” and “treason” or any of the other buzz words he drops in here. This claim is bogus.
II. Promissory Estoppel - (p.17)
Pretty much same thing as count 1. Trying to have some kind of contract law principles applied to treason. This claim is also bogus.
III. Breach of duty - (p. 18)
In a best case scenario, the only person with a “duty” will be his senators and his congressman. The rest owe no duty to him. They don’t represent him or his interests. But that assumes there is some duty. There is not. Nobody’s congressman has a legal “duty” to anyone. Simply taking an oath of office doesn’t give rise to the entirety of the government having a duty to Brunson. This claim also fails.
IV. Intentional infliction of emotional distress - (p.19)
Seriously? This idiocy pretty much speaks for itself and I won’t waste time explaining the obvious.
V. Fraud - (p. 20)
First, this is just some generalized grievance about the bullshit we all know happened. He starts by claiming fraud in the inducement. But its all based on this bogus theory that the oath of office is some how an agreement with him. Which it isn’t.
This guy doesn’t even understand he does not have any right to vote for president at all. He has a privilege to do so. Because Utah’s legislature affords him this privilege. They can take it away too. Utah could simply vote to have the legislature choose presidential electors and not the public at large. As a lot of states early in our republic used to do.
VI. Civil conspiracy - (p.23)
You need underlying tortious acts to allege civil conspiracy. None of his other 5 counts are viable. Accordingly, this one is also dead.
He actually cites a criminal statute about treason as a basis some court has ability to remove all of these people in his civil case. Uh…what? No.
He demands absurd amounts of money, without any hint of how he has incurred damages of this amount. I am assuming he intends this money to go to him. But even if they are fines, you need a basis for this. You can’t just make the shit up out of thin air.
Is this some kind of Eric Cartman “respect muh authoritay!” comment? Or “Don’t you dare question Alexander Vindman’s patriotism!” type of complete diversion from the issue? He’s basically saying that calling this LARP suit a LARP is also treasonous. Jesus. How unhinged is this guy?
The bottom line is that calling the 2020 election bullshit treason, an act of war, giving aid and comfort to the enemy - whether it is true or it isn’t - doesn’t magically breathe life into claims for relief 1 thru 6. It just doesn’t. Those claims aren’t viable. No matter how outrageous those people acted on Election Day through January 6.
That’s why this is one of two things: (1) a retard; or (2) a grifter. Zero reason anyone should pay attention to this suit. It will fail because it should. It is awful. No amount of sprinkling treason/act of war/aid and comfort/wtf ever mustard on his counts 1 thru 6 shit sandwich make it not a shit sandwich.
Thanks for that. Wish someone with legal knowledge had posted it sooner. Perhaps they did, but it got buried under everyone's wishful thinking.
I see. It has seemed like many are misinterpreting. So the conference on the 6th is just the process. Nothing positive or negative.
Correct. Standard operating procedure.
This is seriously laughable. This guy is unhinged.
People need to quit reading his hyperbole and editorializing. This has nothing to do with what his claims for relief are. I broke this down in here in another reply and also linked his complaint. You should read that. Absolutely none of what he is saying in what you just linked has anything to do with his 6 claims for relief.
I agree with your assessment of this case...Also, the Brunson Case INVOLVES NATIONAL SECURITY..The above link to the URL AND READING it does NOT cover the National Security issue and ALSO the Solicitor General NOT going to INTERFERE or STOP any proceeding(s). She SIGNED AWAY her right to REPRESENT THE GOVERNMENT...
NOTE: I do wish people would look at things in light of what has taken place with the Brunson Case...The court PUTTING the case on the docket means they, SCJs will DISCUSS the merits...AND ALSO THE RAMIFICATIONS...
IF THE CASE MOVES FORWARD, IT WILL BE UP TO THE US MARSHALS SERVICE AND THE MILITARY...The REASON: to keep people from howling at the moon when their congcritters are lead away...AND ELECTIONS ARE RE-DONE!!!!
President Trump said on the night leaving the SCIF: "WE CAUGHT THEM ALL, WE'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS."!!!
This is a 'petition for a writ of certiorari' scheduled for a conference on Jan. 06. No one knows if it will be even heard less require the votes to proceed and schedule for oral arguments. In the article it states only 20-25% of the petitions distributed for a given conference are actually discussed”. The other 75-80% of petitions are denied and discarded—likely without the justices ever reading them or even being aware they exist.
I hope the Brunson petition is indeed considered and survives conference.
Ok…with all due respect here…where the hell did you come up with this? Did every Brunson case cheerleader here fail civics? Every single case that pays the filing fee and submits all required paperwork “gets on the docket.” That is not remarkable. Nor does SCOTUS “hear the merits” of any case. That is simply not true either.
How does one file an appeal of a federal case? Can you just file an appeal because you didn’t like the outcome? No. You need a reason to appeal. What error(s) did the court make in your case? In Brunson’s case, they never got to any of the merits. Was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. What is on appeal is whether any of the causes of action stated in the initial complaint have federal court subject matter jurisdiction. IF they actually wasted their time hearing this case, that is the ONLY issue they would look at. Merits are irrelevant to why they are before this court.
No. Government waived their right to respond to the petition for certiorari. Nobody is going to waste time replying to a bullshit lawsuit with no merit. That is a waste of valuable lawyer work. This case speaks for itself…its bs. It will get dismissed without needing the government to explain why it should be.
"SIGNED AWAY" is used as a SYNONYM for "HAS WAIVED"!!!
Happy New Year!!!!!!!😎😎😎😎😎
Except you take it a bridge too far. Waiving a right to respond to a writ is not the same as declining to represent the government. It is simply declining to respond to the petition. That person is still attorney of record for the government. You can bet if this magically gets out of conference with 4 votes, there will be someone from the DOJ representing the government.
So you’re saying there’s a chance it makes it out of conference.
Another thing that makes no sense....when the SC dismissed the Texas v. PA case based on "standing", which is as transparently corrupt a reason as it gets, IMHO. Texas, as well as all the others who joined the case, certainly DID have standing to bring the case. Could the real reason be that the timing wasn't right to rule on the merits?
All the cases that have failed as a result of 'lack of standing', isn't it time to ask SCOTUS 'then what and who does have standing?
Without the current level of PAIN that ALL are experiencing, We would have WON the battle but lost the WAR because the next election would have been tightened up and the Fake News would have the TRUMPET.
Yes, it was a bogus dismissal for “standing.” But that case isn’t comparable to this Brunson case. The TX v PA case was an original jurisdiction case. State v. State can go straight to SCOTUS under article III. SCOTUS can rule on the merits in an original jurisdiction case.
Basically the SC punted and argued it was a State right issue. But you bring up a fair point that when there are disputes between States that is when the SC has to step in and NOT punt.
Overturning of Roe shows the current temperament of the court can lead it to make what may seem to be profound revisions to former doctrine.
Full agreement with MI-vet.
I do not think that we are in well charted constitutional waters. I think we are in an unprecedented situation in an unprecedented time.
World civilization is in the balance and to a large and real extent that means it is in the hands of the SCOTUS.
There is also the important fact that they also have taken an oath to support and defend the constitution - which has been egregiously violated. Will they continue that? Or will they rectify it.
The justices have a choice to make. That individual choice will be revealed in the nuances of their reasoning as they write down their opinions.
The consequences will be immense. Will there be civil war? Possibly.
If Brunson is found to be without merit by SCOTUS the US will be very close to utter failure and on the brink of chaos.
Anons have suggested that civil war may be avoided by a GREAT REVEAL that would shock the middle and lower levels of America into a wakefulness that would make civil war unnecessary. I would have to see that actually operate to believe it. Even with informed people we would still need a mechanism to effect the vast changes that are necessary. Real elections would be almost two years away and knowing there is cheating happening does not stop cheating.
The entirety of government needs to be cleaned. The congress, all the agencies, all the states, the judges, the DAs and the animal control officers. All of it.
Big tech needs to be cleaned by people of good character - like Elon.
Then the military, too.
So will the SCOTUS find in favor of Brunson?
Their first decision is not even a week away.
I have been wondering about this case. It seemed like a hail Mary from the beginning, but it is still quite something that the supreme court of the United States of America is even talking about it. One would think with the sensitive matters at hand and large allegations, time would be a more pressing issue with these people.
My interpretation of this case is, it is being used as an insurance policy to make sure the outgoing congress is not going to do anything stupid to hamper the incoming congress. Hence the date of Jan 6th for the conference.
My guess is that, they wont outright reject it, but will put it on ice as the next two years unfold with more and more disclosures, and when the time is right and people are sufficiently angry, the case will be brought back to the forefront.
If Congress is the only body that can impeach and remove a congressman, it's nothing more than business as usual. Creating laws for us and not for them. If the Supreme Court finds a judgement for treason, its seems like it would fall directly under the military courts for treason;.
Is it not unique being a simple civil suit that was eagerly accepted by the Supreme Court, it’s too simple, and it is my understanding that it was not contested…….that’s a pretty solid case!!!????
Proof in the pudding I guess. I still hold hope in the conscience of good people. Too much maybe. The alternatives won't be pretty.
The supreme court didn't "accept" it, it's been distributed for conference where they will decide whether to grant the petition, the same as every case that someone successfully completes the application for. The fact that the DOJ didn't consider a response necessary is most likely because they are well aware that the petition will be denied. Lawyers' whole job is to create arguments, they're not just gonna be stumped by a case, can always come up with some counterargument if you need to.
The veteran Derek Johnson says the Supreme Court is also under military control, and the Brunson case will never happen.🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️
I saw this yesterday and after reading it, decided NOT to post it. I just saw it as a biased analysis by a doomer.
I read through it completely. I often do NOT read through articles and things completely. I found this one to be convincing, well-reasoned, well written.
I just wonder, what will your viewpoint be if indeed the Brunson case does not even make it past conference?
After 5 years of seeing hopium being paraded around instead of hopermectin, I conclude this particular case and issue is really driving the hopium high (with likely hopium crash afterwards).
In my opinion.
Signed, 1000% not a doomer.
I will be disappointed, again, and realize that the military is the only way. However, I am curious how Clarence Thomas will rule on this and what will be his reasoning. He may be one of the few to recognize the situation just as there were around 20% in Congress who did move for a delay to investigate.
Thanks for giving me an opportunity to understand not to get my hopes up about this.
The Hobbit Frodo Baggins feels all but overwhelmed by the enormity of the task ahead of him and tells the wizard Gandalf,
“I wish it need not have happened in my time.”
“So do I,” replies Gandalf. “And so do all who live to see such times. But it is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.”
Happy New Year, to all dear friends and fellow travellers.
Excellent reminder!
The important thing is that credible evidence of election fraud has been submitted under penalty of perjury for public scrutiny. The recognition of the evidence will have its effect even if the court case is quashed.
I recently completed a lawsuit against the State of California's tax agency where I alleged they were running two embezzlement/racketeering schemes and third racketeering scheme. The State of CA never denied my allegations. They pretended as if I had made completely different arguments and claimed I had never submitted any evidence or legal codes. The judge went with the State's arguments and rejected all of my evidence on technicalities. Proof: https://gwsandiego.net/blog/
But it was worth the effort. The State never denied the allegations, they evaded them. That gives a lot of traction to me and others to fight the State in other venues, or even to file another court case.
All of the evidence of the criminal schemes has been submitted under penalty of perjury. While the judge may have chosen to ignore the evidence, it is still evidence that can be used by me other people/organizations in other capacities.
I have been putting a lot of pressure on legislators to intervene to stop it. Before the court case, the legislators mocked me for thinking the agency was running a criminal scheme. Now that I send them court documents, they take me seriously. Q said lawsuits work. I can attest that they do work, even if not in the way that you intended.
The Brunson CASE is scaring the hell out of the malcontents who stole the election and WHAT CAN BE PRESENTED...Don't forget, Lil' Birdies sometimes do have a ear to bend when the time comes...
The naysayers are out in force with every specious argument they can muster.
We will see how SCOTUS responds in just six days.
Then we will see how the new congress responds and how America responds.
What an awesome post and piece of information!! Thanks so much for your fine efforts. This is part of how we will win. Doomers never win!!
Thank you. :)
My life motto is slow and steady wins the race. I am certain that if I keep at it, I'll stop them eventually. Every "defeat" I have had has provided kernels of information that has allowed me to find more corruption and open more eyes to all the corruptions I have uncovered. Each "defeat" means that my eventual victory will take out lots of different corruption schemes in one fell swoop.
I don't know if the Supreme Court would have any ability to enforce their decisions if they sided with Brunson. All they can do is show that there was a dereliction of duty & tell the executive branch what the remedy should be. The co-equal branch doesn't need to listen to any other branch.
That said, it could also be that this spurs the military to do their thing.
Either way, the blackhats are up against a population that is waking up & pressuring where we can to defeat them with more power than we have had for decades. This creates panic & panic creates mistakes. They have about as much idea what will trigger military action as we do. They just know it is very likely coming & are trying to stop every scenario that could lead to it.
The best part of this even being heard will be the evidence that can be shown to normies with the corruption that has already been exposed via Twitter in the past weeks. Just more signals to sheep that they need to break from their current shepard (deep state programs).
This is a war & any battle that confuses an enemy & divides their resources is a good step forward for us.
Put down the hopium pipe and find out what SCOTUS can and can't, will and won't, should and shouldn't do with Brunson. And check the comment on "fraud vitiates everything" while you are at it.
I respect Tracy Beanz and all, but I think this analysis is rather one-sided, going on what's come before the SCOTUS up until now. There's never been a case like this under the circumstances that this one has been brought, and I'm keeping my thoughts and intentions on a major shake-up ensuing.
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
I kinda disagree, but give major kudos for your sticking to your story.
I like it. More than anything in this fight, gumshun (?) is needed.
"This column isn’t going to earn anyone money—to the contrary—many of you will likely hate us for writing it. But the truth is the truth".
A wise man once said, anything before "BUT" is BS.
This brings up another interesting point - why are these people writing all of the doomer black pill posts and articles in the first place? They gain nothing, and piss off a lot of people in the process... so WHY are they doing it? The smart thing for them to do is say nothing at all. There are plenty of other topics to cover in the meantime.
I think we may see a pattern emerge with the Bolsonaro trip to Florida info. First, it was leaked that Bolsonaro was going to fly to Florida and not be in Brazil for the Squid's inauguration. Then, a bunch of others debunked that info, to the point that some journalists apologized for getting it wrong.
Then what happened? Bolsonaro and his whole family flew to Florida just like the original rumors said they were going to do.
It is possible that the same sort of deliberate false information is being spread about the Brunson SC case. That is the only explanation that I can think of for why various people are pissing off their readers by writing doomer articles that only hurt themselves.
They just want to stop people's hope.
They are evil.
If this were simply up to and about SCOTUS I would ageee. But I think this is about SCOTUS+White Hats/military, in which case we should not expect status quo.
We are not going to get a fair and impartial trial from any of the DOJ. I don't really trust any of them.
I am always hoping no matter what. I want to be positive even if it is another disappointment like President Trumps has said never ever give up. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OSJDhZvLtak
We shall see.
Article makes a ton of sense. For those of us who remain emotionally uninvested in this, we’ll find out in just a week what happens I guess.
Don't care for your emotions.
What about y'all's financial investment?
My guess is that it might be direct or it might be indirect - but it's there.
This has been my feeling about this case. I am not putting any weight on this petition for a writ of certiorari.
As a lay person, the only thing I can say is that so many law experts are also defending this case which should be surprising if there was no merit in this case!
Check this video of a constitutional law expert explaining the complaint filed in the Brunson case in detail:
https://rumble.com/v235yf8-constitutional-law-part-ii-the-brunson-brothers-lawsuit-before-the-supreme-.html
Also, read this article from a professor teaching constitutional law:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/12/tim-canova-supreme-court-considers-case-seeking-overturn-2020-presidential-election/
Are you choosing to only listen to the law experts that agree with you? Any non-pilled lawyer will tell you this has a snowball's chance in hell. Even an article on "uncoverDC".
Glad to see a rational article about the Brunson case being stickied after all the hopium posts by one mod.
I am not saying that we listen to the law experts blindly. But that goes both ways. If you read this article, you are made to believe that this case has no merits and probably the worst case filed ever before SCOTUS. If there are experts on both sides, then we should wait and watch before reacting. We should pray for the outcome that we believe in but at the same time should not be disappointed if it is decided the other way!
It is inevitable that there will be a multitude of lawyers taking the blackpill position on Brunson.
After all, for whom do they work?
Thank you!
What, trust the courts to do the correct thing and rule for the Constitution and fairness. Never once put my hope there, neither should anyone else.
Yes. SCOTUS was the court of original jurisdiction for Texas v Pennsylvania -aaannnnnddddd - punted.
To my layman's ears they basically said "States no longer have a neutral forum to adjudicate disputes and shall henceforth resolve such discord by force of arms."
I have said this before but this case is unique in that the SC may choose to hear the case but not offer a remedy.
I just have a hard time believing that "the plan" rest on some guys filing a Supreme court case.
Plus from what I can see things are about to get a hell of a lot worse. The white hats are not going to step in front of that. Then take the heat for what the enemy has set up.
Like Q has already said... "Never Interfere With an Enemy While He’s in the Process of Destroying Himself."
https://qposts.online/?q=1842&s=postnum
In this thread, lots of people who didn't read the article bringing up arguments that the article convincingly refuted.
Lol, and then downvoting the person who points that out. Sheesh, pedes.
stubborn much...