Win / GreatAwakening
GreatAwakening
Sign In
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES All General AskWin Funny Technology Animals Sports Gaming DIY Health Positive Privacy
Reason: None provided.

I watched this interview of the brother of the plaintiff (who also has an identical case that is still working in the courts). He clarified several points for me.

https://rumble.com/v1xqob2-a-breach-of-national-security.-loy-brunson-supreme-court-case.html

The SCOTUS had the Dobbs case. The fact that they let the long-standing Roe v. Wade be overturned is a clue that there are still some justices who want to uphold constitutional law. OTOH, one or two of those votes might have had to do with pro-life beliefs more than upholding the Constitution, so not an ideal litmus test, but still an indication that they might do the right thing.

Loy Brunson said that the ONLY argument the defense has raised is the idea that the members of Congress have immunity. THAT IS THE ISSUE.

There was ample evidence to assert that the 2020 presidential election may have been rigged for the loser to win. THIS WAS NOT CONTESTED BY THE DEFENSE.

Once this evidence was presented to members of Congress, 377 voted to NOT INVESTIGATE this claim. But, they took an oath of office to support and defend the Constitution, and refusing to investigate a claim of treason against the United States is a violation of their oath of office.

The 14th Amendment says that any person who takes such an oath, and then acts in direct violation of it, shall be removed from office and be unfit to ever hold public office again.

Congress passed a statute several years ago giving them immunity for acts while they are doing their congressional duties. However, that cannot logically mean that it would include a violation of their oath of office. The immunity cannot stand because Congress cannot pass a law that violates the Constitution.

Again, the defense's ONLY defense is immunity.

If there is no immunity, then SCOTUS can make any decision they want.

Loy Brunson said that this is his brother's case, and that when they filed the paperwork with SCOTUS, they had to make a change after the filing. They asked about this, and they were told that THE SUPREME COURT WANTS THIS PAPERWORK FILED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE -- because it is a case of NATIONAL SECURITY.

This is the SCOTUS saying this, not some internet lawyer.

I now expect that SCOTUS actually WILL take this case. They need 4 justices to agree to take it. Later, they will decide it, and that will require 5 votes.

If SCOTUS takes this case and does NOT get the 5 votes, then it means that Congress AND the SCOTUS have created a situation so that there is NO RECOURSE for election fraud. In that case, either the military steps in, or the People must do something -- even if that is somehow getting justices removed via a new Congress, but how would you do that when elections are rigged? Catch 22.

If SCOTUS takes this case, they do NOT have to only send it back to the lower (corrupt and/or cowardly) courts. Rather, they can issue THEIR OWN ORDER to do whatever it is that must be done (because of national security).

This would be an interesting dig for someone (I don't have the time to do it at the moment) --

There are 377 members named as defendants in the lawsuit.

Of those, 2 are president and vice president. SCOTUS could remove Biden/Harris, and INSTALL Trump/Pence, as the rightful winners of the 2020 election. Doing so AFTER January 20, 2023 would be ideal, as then there would be no question that Trump could run for re-election in 2024.

Also, if this happens, it means that ALL of Biden's executive orders and ALL statutes passed by Congress and signed by him are null and void, as he was never the president.

Of the remaining 375 defendants, how many of those are NOT going to be in office starting in January, due to either not having run for re-election or having lost?

The House needs a quorum to do business. If these people are removed from office, would there be a quorum? There might be, if enough NEW members were elected for the upcoming session.

Same applies to the Senate.

Could this be why Trump was trumpeting the fact that 90% of the candidates he endorsed won?

We will soon find out if we have a SCOTUS with enough people who will uphold their own oaths of office.

1 year ago
2 score
Reason: None provided.

I watched this interview of the brother of the plaintiff (who also has an identical case that is still working in the courts). He clarified several points for me.

https://rumble.com/v1xqob2-a-breach-of-national-security.-loy-brunson-supreme-court-case.html

The SCOTUS had the Dobbs case. The fact that they let the long-standing Roe v. Wade be overturned is a clue that there are still some justices who want to uphold constitutional law. OTOH, one or two of those votes might have had to do with pro-life beliefs more than upholding the Constitution, so not an ideal litmus test, but still an indication that they might do the right thing.

Loy Brunson said that the ONLY argument the defense has raised is the idea that the members of Congress have immunity. THAT IS THE ISSUE.

There was ample evidence to assert that the 2020 presidential election may have been rigged for the loser to win. THIS WAS NOT CONTESTED BY THE DEFENSE.

Once this evidence was presented to members of Congress, 377 voted to NOT INVESTIGATE this claim. But, they took an oath of office to support and defend the Constitution, and refusing to investigate a claim of treason against the United States is a violation of their oath of office.

The 14th Amendment says that any person who takes such an oath, and then acts in direct violation of it, shall be removed from office and be unfit to ever hold public office again.

Congress passed a statute several years ago giving them immunity for acts while they are doing their congressional duties. However, that cannot logically mean that it would include a violation of their oath of office. The immunity cannot stand because Congress cannot pass a law that violates the Constitution.

Again, the defense's ONLY defense is immunity.

If there is no immunity, then SCOTUS can make any decision they want.

Loy Brunson said that this is his brother's case, and that when they filed the paperwork with SCOTUS, they had to make a change after the filing. They asked about this, and they were told that THE SUPREME COURT WANTS THIS PAPERWORK FILED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE -- because it is a case of NATIONAL SECURITY.

This is the SCOTUS saying this, not some internet lawyer.

I now expect that SCOTUS actually WILL take this case. They need 4 justices to agree to take it. Later, they will decide it, and that will require 5 votes.

If SCOTUS takes this case and does NOT get the 5 votes, then it means that Congress AND the SCOTUS have created a situation so that there is NO RECOURSE for election fraud. In that case, either the military steps in, or the People must do something -- even if that is somehow getting justices removed via a new Congress, but how would you do that when elections are rigged? Catch 22.

If SCOTUS takes this case, they do NOT have to only send it back to the lower (corrupt and/or cowardly) courts. Rather, they can issue THEIR OWN ORDER to do whatever it is that must be done (because of national security).

This would be an interesting dig for someone (I don't have the time to do it at the moment) --

There are 377 members named as defendants in the lawsuit.

Of those, 2 are president and vice president. SCOTUS could remove Biden/Harris, and INSTALL Trump/Pence, as the rightful winners of the 2020 election. Doing so AFTER January 20, 2023 would be ideal, as then there would be no question that Trump could run for re-election in 2024.

Also, if this happens, it means that ALL of Biden's executive orders and ALL statutes passed by Congress and signed by him are null and void, as he was never the president.

Of the remaining 375 members, how many of those are NOT going to be in office starting in January, due to either not having run for re-election or having lost?

The House needs a quorum to do business. If these people are removed from office, would there be a quorum? There might be, if enough NEW members were elected for the upcoming session.

Same applies to the Senate.

Could this be why Trump was trumpeting the fact that 90% of the candidates he endorsed won?

We will soon find out if we have a SCOTUS with enough people who will uphold their own oaths of office.

1 year ago
2 score
Reason: None provided.

I watched this interview of the brother of the plaintiff (who also has an identical case that is still working in the courts). He clarified several points for me.

https://rumble.com/v1xqob2-a-breach-of-national-security.-loy-brunson-supreme-court-case.html

The SCOTUS had the Dobbs case. The fact that they let the long-standing Roe v. Wade be overturned is a clue that there are still some justices who want to uphold constitutional law. OTOH, one or two of those votes might have had to do with pro-life beliefs more than upholding the Constitution, so not an ideal litmus test, but still an indication that they might do the right thing.

Loy Brunson said that the ONLY argument the defense has raised is the idea that the members of Congress have immunity. THAT IS THE ISSUE.

There was ample evidence to assert that the 2020 presidential election may have been rigged for the loser to win. THIS WAS NOT CONTESTED BY THE DEFENSE.

Once this evidence was presented to members of Congress, 377 voted to NOT INVESTIGATE this claim. But, they took an oath of office to support and defend the Constitution, and refusing to investigate a claim of treason against the United States is a violation of their oath of office.

The 14th Amendment says that any person who takes such an oath, and then acts in direct violation of it, shall be removed from office and be unfit to ever hold public office again.

Congress passed a statute several years ago giving them immunity for acts while they are doing their congressional duties. However, that cannot logically mean that it would include a violation of their oath of office. The immunity cannot stand because Congress cannot pass a law that violates the Constitution.

Again, the defense's ONLY defense is immunity.

If there is no immunity, then SCOTUS can make any decision they want.

Loy Brunson said that this is his brother's case, and that when they filed the paperwork with SCOTUS, they had to make a change after the filing. They asked about this, and they were told that THE SUPREME COURT WANTS THIS PAPERWORK FILED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE -- because it is a case of NATIONAL SECURITY.

This is the SCOTUS saying this, not some internet lawyer.

I now expect that SCOTUS actually WILL take this case. They need 4 justices to agree to take it. Later, they will decide it, and that will require 5 votes.

If SCOTUS takes this case and does NOT get the 5 votes, then it means that Congress AND the SCOTUS have created a situation so that there is NO RECOURSE for election fraud. In that case, either the military steps in, or the People must do something -- even if that is somehow getting justices removed via a new Congress, but how would you do that when elections are rigged? Catch 22.

If SCOTUS takes this case, they do NOT have to only send it back to the lower (corrupt and/or cowardly) courts. Rather, they can issue THEIR OWN ORDER to do whatever it is that must be done (because of national security).

This would be an interesting dig for someone (I don't have the time to do it at the moment) --

There are 377 members named.

Of those, 2 are president and vice president. SCOTUS could remove Biden/Harris, and INSTALL Trump/Pence, as the rightful winners of the 2020 election. Doing so AFTER January 20, 2023 would be ideal, as then there would be no question that Trump could run for re-election in 2024.

Also, if this happens, it means that ALL of Biden's executive orders and ALL statutes passed by Congress and signed by him are null and void, as he was never the president.

Of the remaining 375 members, how many of those are NOT going to be in office starting in January, due to either not having run for re-election or having lost?

The House needs a quorum to do business. If these people are removed from office, would there be a quorum? There might be, if enough NEW members were elected for the upcoming session.

Same applies to the Senate.

Could this be why Trump was trumpeting the fact that 90% of the candidates he endorsed won?

We will soon find out if we have a SCOTUS with enough people who will uphold their own oaths of office.

1 year ago
2 score
Reason: Original

I watched this interview of the brother of the plaintiff (who also has an identical case that is still working in the courts). He clarified several points for me.

https://rumble.com/v1xqob2-a-breach-of-national-security.-loy-brunson-supreme-court-case.html

The SCOTUS had the Dobbs case. The fact that they let the long-standing Roe v. Wade be overturned is a clue that there are still some justices who want to uphold constitutional law. OTOH, one or two of those votes might have had to do with pro-life beliefs more than upholding the Constitution, so not an ideal litmus test, but still an indication that they might do the right thing.

Loy Brunson said that the ONLY argument the defense has raised is the idea that the members of Congress have immunity. THAT IS THE ISSUE.

There was ample evidence to assert that the 2020 presidential election may have been rigged for the loser to win. THIS WAS NOT CONTESTED BY THE DEFENSE.

Once this evidence was presented to members of Congress, 377 voted to NOT INVESTIGATE this claim. But, they took an oath of office to support and defend the Constitution, and refusing to investigate a claim of treason against the United States is a violation of their oath of office.

The 14th Amendment says that any person who takes such an oath, and then acts in direct violation of it, shall be removed from office and be unfit to ever hold public office again.

Congress passed a statute several years ago giving them immunity for acts while they are doing their congressional duties. However, that cannot logically mean that it would include a violation of their oath of office. The immunity cannot stand because Congress cannot pass a law that violates the Constitution.

Again, the defense's ONLY defense is immunity.

If there is no immunity, then SCOTUS can make any decision they want.

Loy Brunson said that this is his brother's case, and that when they filed the paperwork with SCOTUS, they had to make a change after the filing. They asked about this, and they were told that THE SUPREME COURT WANTS THIS PAPERWORK FILED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE -- because it is a case of NATIONAL SECURITY.

This is the SCOTUS saying this, not some internet lawyer.

I now expect that SCOTUS actually WILL take this case. They need 4 justices to agree to take it. Later, they will decide it, and that will require 5 votes.

If SCOTUS takes this case and does NOT get the 5 votes, then it means that Congress AND the SCOTUS have created a situation so that there is NO RECOURSE for election fraud. In that case, either the military steps in, or the People must do something -- even if that is somehow getting justices removed via a new Congress, but how would you do that when elections are rigged? Catch 22.

If SCOTUS takes this case, they do NOT have to only send it back to the lower (corrupt and/or cowardly) courts. Rather, they can issue THEIR OWN ORDER to do whatever it is that must be done.

This would be an interesting dig for someone (I don't have the time to do it at the moment) --

There are 377 members named.

Of those, 2 are president and vice president. SCOTUS could remove Biden/Harris, and INSTALL Trump/Pence, as the rightful winners of the 2020 election. Doing so AFTER January 20, 2023 would be ideal, as then there would be no question that Trump could run for re-election in 2024.

Also, if this happens, it means that ALL of Biden's executive orders and ALL statutes passed by Congress and signed by him are null and void, as he was never the president.

Of the remaining 375 members, how many of those are NOT going to be in office starting in January, due to either not having run for re-election or having lost?

The House needs a quorum to do business. If these people are removed from office, would there be a quorum? There might be, if enough NEW members were elected for the upcoming session.

Same applies to the Senate.

Could this be why Trump was trumpeting the fact that 90% of the candidates he endorsed won?

We will soon find out if we have a SCOTUS with enough people who will uphold their own oaths of office.

1 year ago
1 score