Brunsons' response pic 1
(media.greatawakening.win)
Comments (30)
sorted by:
I agree that the OATH of office is the central argument, and if people ignore it then why are they made to swear it in the first place? It is not for decoration, BTW.
Tracy's argument is along the lines of SCOTUS does not have the power to unseat elected members of congress, or change the outcome of an election.
However, the OATH is a deeper argument, because one swears to uphold the constitution. To break it, is treasonous. Also, this targets congressmen from both sides of the isle, so technically SCOTUS is not being politically partisan in considering the purpose of the OATH. the fact that more Dems than Reps voted to ignore the 100+ petitioners claiming that the election was full of flaws, is incidental. the fact is that they did, and therefore ignored their OATH.
So, in my opinion SCOTUS does have that power to remove those people from office.
We shall see.
Good comment.
Thank you.
Excellent, Sadness.
You are most welcome.
Thanks for posting this. Page 1 response is powerful.
There have been some shills determined to badmouth the Brunson case on the various social media sites.
I posted a few rebuttals, but this page 1 and page 2 are much better... thanks.
You're welcome.
I pray and hope the Brunson petition is indeed considered and survives conference.
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.
Let's all pray the Brunson 'petition for a writ of certiorari' survives the SCOTUS conference on Jan. 6th. This appears to be the next hurdle.
I know. Pray.
Amplify this clap back, tho!!!!!
I’m sorry but I have intentionally taken a break from the alternative news during this holiday season. What is the context of Brunson’s response to Tracy Beanz? Reading the response, it sounds like Tracy Beanz, et.al. authored an article claiming Brunson’s case before the SCOTUS is garbage. If true, I thought Tracy Beanz was a patriot! Or is she a paytroit?
She does good legal analysis but IMO takes it too far sometimes (arrogant).
I stopped listening to a long time ago when she argued against a Trump proposal for an Internet Bill of Rights.
I don't trust her.
This...Arrogant is correct....Both Adam and Tracy came across like they have a lock on what will happen.
When I saw her name on this, I thought is she genuine or controlled opposition? I read a couple of pieces years ago of hers. I was never interested or impressed. Just a personal observation. I have zero idea either way.
She's so ignorant
A friend of the Brunsons posted this on TS after contacting them. I don't know. Maybe Tracy just is not really qualified to read a legal document like this. I always thought she was good at research.
She has been great at reading the Lake documents and others. Painstaking. Knows her stuff.
I found the article by DC undercover to be reasonable, sensible and well written.
People don't have to agree, but I thought it was good.
This response, I find less so. Argumentative, assertions, attacking.
Accusing the authors ad hominem is not a good start. "unless you did not care for the truth"
"you do not know the mind of SCOTUS and you acted like you do"
"A rigged election is an act of war"
The response is highly emotional, indicating a LOT of attachment to the person's own viewpoint, and hence lacking in objectivity.
Reading between the lines, it seems pretty clear to me who's really making reasoned, objective arguments here, and who isn't.
Agreed. I found the article enlightening, and intended to bring us back to a realistic expectation of the process. Let's hope they don't march into the chamber and claim "This is war!" and start pointing fingers at anyone that disagrees with them.
Here's the GAW post of the article.
https://greatawakening.win/p/16ZqPbRnN9/-the-truth-about-the-brunson-cas/
TY fren!
For another perspective on the Brunson case and Brunson rebuttal, see this thread:
https://greatawakening.win/p/16ZqPbRnN9/x/c/4ToipudBRrN
Didn't SCOTUS throw out a Class action case about this election ?
We keep doing the same thing and expecting different results.
What needs to happen is that people that have done nothing about this in the last 3 years need to do something.
Yes but this isn't about the election this is about their oaths, totally different angle.
That is not the central argument. It is not about the election persé, more about the oath that members of congress swear.
Although I agree to your last point.
Probably wouldn't hurt to actually read the Brunson case.
Wouldn't have hurt to actually won the case in 1 of the 3200 counties in the USA. I know, I know, you will probably say, that's not how the legal system works... This is my point, why do we have to follow the rule of a damaged legal system?
Dear Scotus, The Election was rigged and you were in on it.
Dear Brunson, your case doesn't have any standing.
To sum up. I don't really care what SCOTUS rules on this. Therefore while SCOTUS is in the process of Throwing it out... I want a Tribunal of American Citizens or Military Jurists convening on this case In Parallel.
Tracy Beans is an ignorant grifting twat..turncoat paid shill along with ali akbar Alexander and Alex jones. F#ck all of them
Elon provided the evidence. If they have the true audit information that would be proof that if it was investigated as required by their oath they would have found that it was rigged.