Every single one of us here could file a completely bullshit lawsuit filled with endless amounts of hyperbole and no cognizable legal theory contained in it, let alone a viable one. But where would that get us, except for time lost that you'll never get back? What exactly is the point of such an exercise? Virtue signaling to the crowd righteously outraged about election fraud? Its like in blazing saddles "I didn't get a harrumph from that guy!" "Give the Governor a harrumph!"

Maybe we could even accuse our own reporters of treason for questioning the viability for the lawsuit like Brunson did to Tracy Beanz. Wouldn't that be a hoot? I love it when we imitate the left by adopting a speech code as it relates to certain sacred cows.

Not a single person in here that cheerleads this utterly bogus lawsuit has actually bothered to read the entirety of the filings and dig into it. They have all been stuck at the intro rants talking about election fraud, treason, aid and comfort to an enemy, and whatever other generalized grievance people have about the 2020 election. Meanwhile, Brunson actually has an "intentional infliction of emotional distress" claim in his lawsuit! 🤣🤣 Nobody ever bothered to get that far to see how stupid this case is.

6 claims for relief; none of which is a claim of treason, aid and comfort, or election fraud:

1. Promissory estoppel - a bogus claim that attempts to apply contract law principles to election fraud...nope, fail
2. Promissory estoppel - almost identical to the first one. nope, fail.
3. Breach of duty - bogus theory that an oath of office gives rise to a duty to Brunson. Nope. Taking an oath does not magically make the entirety of government owe a duty to Brunson. Fail.
4. Intentional infliction of emotional distress - 🤣🤣
5. Fraud - a generalized grievance about how the 2020 election was "conducted" sprinkled in with more faulty logic trying to connect it to the failed theory there is some duty to him arising out of an oath.
6. Civil conspiracy - no underlying tortious acts that are viable have been alleged; accordingly no civil conspiracy claim can be viable. Fail.

Now all of you cheerleaders for this case need to go do some digging and explain how all of this is somehow inaccurate, and contract law principles can be applied to people who have never met or spoken with Brunson, let alone formed an agreement with him. And how an official taking an oath of office gives rise to a duty of care to Brunson, specifically. Also, how Brunson himself was victimized by fraud during the electoral college certification - that each member he is suing personally duped him into casting a ballot on false pretenses. Because without any of this, you cannot demonstrate it works. Period.