Yesterday u/TSearch made a post about how the McCarthy speaker of the house vote might interact with the Brunson case. ie. if the SoH was not yet elected when the congress defendants are possibly removed if the Brunson Brothers win their SC case that the congress defendants broke their oath by not investigating possible election fraud in 2020.
TSearch made the case that the voting for SoH would be diffferent with so many fewer congress members. That hasn't panned out but along the way, TSearch noticed that Kevin McCarthy is not among the congress members mentioned in the case when he would be an eligible defendant.
I guess this is because the white hats have other plans for McCarthy, they need him as SoH now that he has had to make the big concessions to get support.
If you need more proof that this was the plan all along, then here it is, McCarthy is missing from the defendants list.
From u/TSearch 's post:
Here is every House of Representatives defendant with a name ending in M. Copied directly from the filing. I’ve looked multiple times and don’t see his name.
NANCY MACE; TOM MALINOWSKI; CAROLYN B. MALONEY; SEAN PATRICK MALONEY; KATHY E. MANNING; THOMAS MASSIE; DORIS 0. MATSUI; LUCY MCBATH; MICHAEL T. MCCAUL; TOM MCCLINTOCK; BETTY MCCOLLUM; A. ADONALD MCEACHIN; JAMES P. MCGOVERN; PATRICK T. MCHENRY; DAVID B. MCKINLEY; JERRY MCNERNEY; GREGORY W. MEEKS; PETER MEIJER; GRACE MENG; KWEISI MFUME; MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS; JOHN R. MOOLENAAR; BLAKE D. MOORE; GWEN MOORE; JOSEPH D. MORELLE; SETH MOULTON; FRANK J. MRVAN; STEPHANIE N. MURPHY;
Fascinating.
I posted the updates I'd found on Brunson earlier.
You can check it out if you like.
Monday at 9AM we should find out if they are taking the case or not.
Anyway, I got one angry response telling me the case is a big loser and we shouldn't pay attention to it. I gave a long response and I do see both sides of the argument....
Basically my personal opinion is that the case has definitely attracted grifters and such, and it has been overhyped. BUT the Supreme Court might still choose to take it to look at some specific aspects, even as they ignore 99% of it. From my reply:
Considering what I wrote there now in context with McCarthy winning tonight after capitulating to the concessions package has kind of got me thinking differently about things.
What if the goal of BOTH of these happenings all along was to partially DRAIN THE SWAMP via REINSTITUTED RULES AND CHECKS?
Consider: We now have a MUCH MORE normalized and member-friendly set of rules being put into place in the House. A lot of the changes are actually rollbacks of newer things that gave the Speaker and The House Rules Committee incredible power and essentially made corruption normal and commonplace. Now we've fixed alot of their corrupt methods at streamlining the endless spending and silencing any dissent or objections in Congress.
Maybe the Court takes the case NOT TO REMOVE MEMBERS (there are a lot of reasons why that can't really happen honestly) but instead to ALSO rollback some of the rule changes conferred by the corrupt Swamp to give them immunity? The court might use this case to talk about the CONSTITUTIONALITY of the Title 28 immunity, which essentially makes the oath of office members take ("to protect the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic") a non-binding contract.
If the Court used this case as an opportunity to strike that down it essentially would make the most corrupt people in our politics vulnerable again. As Lauren Boebert stated, you can't have more power without accountability.
Returning to accountability would ensure that a better class of people with integrity and principles would become the Congress members of the future. Loy Brunson has stated this.
I'm not sure where it all goes. But it would have an interesting kind of symmetry with the latest Speaker vote and the types of changes being instituted there would it not?
Open for discussion.
This comment looks like new post material to me.
I am personally not fully invested in the Brunson case as it appears. I strongly think it's a part of the white hat plan and the fact that McCarthy is not on the defendants list adds to this, but, as we find out again and again, things don't turn out the straightforward way that we expect them to, but the Brunson case will turn out to be a major contributor to NCSWIC anyway, just not directly as we suspect. it has to be that way anyway, the white hats cannot telegraph their plans, they have to divert black hat resources to the feints.