Covfefe!
Hopium cases that will prove there is a plan and date fagging . . .
Let's try not to be the wicked generation that demands a "Sign"
Most know which side is going to win.
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;
Yesterday I posted a thread with some background info on both the Brunson SC Case and the House Speaker vote holdup. Increasingly its been noted that both of these things happening at the same time is ... interesting. Possible connections could exist, or perhaps its just fortunate coincedence. The legal remedy the Brunson case suggests of having over 300 members of Congress thrown out is now colliding with McCarthy's nomination to be House Speaker being held up, since NO House Member can be sworn in before a Speaker is elected.
Thus the timing of the Supreme Court deciding whether to hear arguments from the Brunson case today on January 6th combined with an entire branch of our government being "offline" and those members not yet officially having their titles and office is quite a strange coincedence. One must wonder what, if any, ramifications or consequences exist here. Both events independent of each other certainly carry much importance, and sometimes drastic events and changes can occur quite quickly in Washington as we have recently seen.
Many of us are pretty informed about both topics by this point so my goal here is not to beat a dead horse but rather to give you all the skinny on where things are at with the Brunson case, as most of the media has outright ignored it, and limited information has made it out about what is going on currently.
Seems as though the Court did review the case today! Here is a nice update mentioning this and giving a re-read of the brief and outlining the case.
Another good update found from a user on YT. He shows footage of some patriotic citizens who were gathered outside the Supreme Court earlier today to show their support for the case.
The conference at the Supreme Court today will have them looking at a grand total of 430 cases and deciding which ones to take on.
A user on Rumble posted a PRAYER message video featuring Juan O Savin earlier today.
While I didn't hear any updated news during these ladies' discussion, I wanted to send this along in case others would like to actively connect and offer prayers of their own. I will say that it was heartening and humbling reading the earnest prayer messages of many people who are watching and waiting. Coupled with the scenes of those standing outside the highest court today in the second link, I am overwhelmed at the decency and goodness of so many people in our country, who are faithfully standing strong with God and in their plea for justice to be done in His name.
- Whatever results come, we should all take a moment to appreciate that we've been brought together in our faith and hopes for a better world through all that has happened. Despite the chaos and turmoil, the common humanity we are finding as so many of us look to God and one another in the midst of the suffering is something truly special. We are blessed to count ourselves among those who can see things clear-eyed and have found a new togetherness and unity in the Lord and life.
So without further ado here is the result: Nil. We won't know until Monday at the earliest, 9:30AM. This is normal procedure for the Supreme Court. Announcements about which cases will be taken are made then. So in the meantime all, continue to hold the line and pray that we will have a favorable result.
Monday 9:30AM we'll find out. Godspeed!
I have been thinking about the US Government's Failsafes in the case that an enemy infiltrates it and destroys it from the inside. Obviously, that is what is happening.
If I understand correctly, the Brunson Case is about whether the people in the legislative and executive branches of government followed their oaths or if they committed treason.
If SCOTUS doesn't take the case then they are admitting they have been corrupted by the enemy as well and failing to follow their OATHs is treason for them too.
That is why I am excited to hear the results regarding whether SCOTUS takes the Brunson Case on Monday, January 9th at 9:30 AM.
Even if SCOTUS doesn't take the case, that is fine, then it is the military's turn to prove they are following their Oath. If the military doesn't act, then we will. If we had to act we would win.
So no matter which failsafe saves the day, it is going to be super exciting.
This is by design. If every area of the government fails and proves to be treasonous then that is what the 2nd amendment is for.
I doubt it will get to us. I believe the military will act, or at least part of it will.
The show should get very exciting this year. I can't wait. What an incredible story. We are living through the most exciting time in human history.
I want to have my popcorn ready. That's all I can think about right now. Anyone else feel the same?
Just a quick thought here:
- The some background for the Brunson Supreme Court case:
"....seeking the removal of President Biden and Vice President Harris, along with 291 U.S. representatives and 94 U.S. senators who voted to certify the electors to the Electoral College on Jan. 6, 2021 without first investigating serious allegations of election fraud in half a dozen states and foreign election interference and breach of national security in the 2020 presidential election. The outcome of such relief would presumably be to restore Donald Trump to the presidency."
"The important national security interests implicated in this case allowed the Brunsons to bypass an appeal that was frozen at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit and get the case to the Supreme Court which has now scheduled a hearing for January 6, 2023. The Brunson Petition for a Writ of Certiorari would require the votes of only four justices to move the case forward."
"It seems astounding that the Court would wade into such waters two years to the day after the Congressional vote to install Joe Biden as president. But these are not normal times. Democrats may well push legislation in this month’s lame duck session of Congress to impose term limits and a mandatory retirement age for justices, and thereby open the door to packing the Court."
(Credit Tim Canova, Highland County Press)
- Without electing a Speaker of the House, per the NYT:
"Without a speaker, the United States House of Representatives essentially becomes a useless entity. Because none of its members can be sworn in until a speaker is chosen, there are no lawmakers to respond to an emergency or a crisis, only representatives-elect."
"With no rules adopted, the legislative process cannot move forward; no bills can be passed or resolutions adopted. Lacking a speaker, the House cannot carry out its responsibility for oversight of the federal government or any other entity. The House cannot haul witnesses before committees, and those elected to serve cannot set up operations to help out their constituents. "Returning lawmakers have lost their security clearances to get private briefings from the military and the intelligence agencies because, having not been sworn in, they are not officially members of Congress."
"But legal experts doubted whether any action taken by a House without a speaker — who is second in line to the presidency — could withstand judicial review. For more than 200 years, the House has used provisions from the Constitution and from a 1789 law to form the basis for its order. According to the Revised Statutes of the United States, at the first session of Congress, the body must first swear in a speaker who then administers the oath of office to all members present, previous to entering on any other business."
"This statute, along with a precedent from March 4, 1869, provides that the election of a speaker is the first and highest priority of the House. This precedent was reaffirmed on Jan. 7, 1997, when the clerk ruled that nominations for speaker were of a higher constitutional privilege than a resolution to postpone the election of speaker until an ethics review had run its course."
Would this be THE BEST TIME to "DRAIN THE SWAMP" as they say? During the hold up, when all of these buffoons are not technically "elected" and the body only partially exists in a legal framework?
Maybe looking into the case during this time and/or bridging forward a legal remedy - from the Supreme Court that is - would apply pressure and solve some problems at THE PERFECT MOMENT in Washington.
Maybe if the SC indicates interest (or whatever they decide) could CHANGE how some of these members cast their votes as this sideshow plays on.
Dont know, i guess we shall see. But fortuitous timing for all of it, wouldn't you say?
what are your thoughts?
And he sees enough vote rounds (up to 17) to know who truly supports him and who doesn’t.
Walks into Oval Office fully armed. Enemies largely defeated. Globalists up next.
Just dreaming!
In the unlikely event SCOTUS shocks the world tomorrow by not only agreeing to consider Brunson, but also summarily ruling in favor of Brunson, it seems that would favor McCarthy. It favors him because it would create a tremendous amount of vacancies, which in turn reduces the number needed to declare a quorum is present.
The vast majority of current Representatives named in the suit are Democrats. Not sure if any current Republicans are, but for sure McCarthy is not. Suddenly McCarthy would need far less than 218 votes he currently needs.
Is that the correct read on the situation?
I am aware Q was referring to AG Jeff Sessions, but it is notable that Q uses "Jeff Sessions" a few times, but often uses "trust Sessions" without specifying Jeff, although I believe it is inferred. However, multiple meanings exist right?
Whether this is a Qincident or not, it is relevant info on how/why this is moving forward.
Scott Sessions Harris
American lawyer serving since September 2013 as the 20th Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States. Prior to appointment to his current position, Harris spent 11 years as the Supreme Court's legal counsel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_S._Harris
(Wiki sucks but for simple facts, I'll use it, it's easy)
What does the clerk do?
Something similar to what federal court clerks do. Primarily, their role is to sift through the thousands of petitions and mark the cases worthy of being granted time. “It's the most basic task, and the constant thing that you do – during the summer it's practically your only task.” The petitions that lawyers write very cleverly argue why their cases should be granted; the clerk's job is “to screen out those that are legitimate and write bench memos on what we think about the case.”
https://www.chambers-associate.com/where-to-start/getting-hired/scotus-clerkships
Scott was previously SCOTUS legal council. What do they do?
The office's initial mission was to provide continuity of experience in the preliminary consideration of extraordinary motions. The lawyers who staffed the office would hopefully provide the Court with a quick and reliable institutional memory for details. The Legal Office is responsible for centralizing and stabilizing the Supreme Court's work by assisting in legal matters, preparing work for weekly conferences, recommending strategies for pending cases, helping justices with personal responses and circuit tasks, and taking on special projects required by the Chief Justice, special chambers, or the Court as a whole.
What is the point?
Scott helped the brothers get this before the court.
Here is the interview with Loy:
Loy Brunson and the Supreme Court Case of The Century.
0:17:17 Brunson first mentions Sessions ~ "The Clerk of the Court is the Gatekeeper."
0:56:45 Brunson~ … "I think the Clerk of the Court [Sessions] … is SMART. He gets it. He sees it. …
1:06:00 Brunson ~ "For 11-years, Scott SESSIONS Harris was the attorney for the Supreme Court."
1:11:00 Brunson ~ [Sessions] "is probable specially schooled, trained and licensed to be able to handle any kind of legal liability that the supreme count might incur" …
Please Lord, give the SCOTUS the courage to take on the case.
😎
Anons have been well trained over the years not to react to dates or what seems like important events/markers. At the same time, it is always exciting to look forward to something big that seems possible. For Brunson Case, the one thing that stands out for me is the 1/6 conference date. If SCOTUS had to dismiss it, they could have kept it for conference on 12/2 or 12/9 and be over it without creating this noise. Let's see what happens!
Let's hope
