2 Brothers from Utah Have Convinced the Supreme Court to Hear a 2020 Election Case
2 Brothers from Utah Have Convinced the Supreme Court to Hear a 2020 Election Case
The one brother tells an amazing story about what has happened so far.
The counsel for the SCt has worked to get this before the court and the gov itself has refused to object to the court hearing the case.
See video here instead of having to read about it.
The US Supreme Court has finally agreed to hear a 2020 election case – and it’s a big one. An attorney from Utah named Raland Brunson has filed a lawsuit alleging that Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi, Mike Pence, and about 385 Members of Congress were derelict in their duty to protect the US Constitution on January 6, 2021.
This is a huge case, because it alleges that those Members of Congress basically committed treason against the American people and the government, by refusing to pause the electoral process over allegations of fraud. Part of me can’t believe that this is real and that’s finally happening. But the Justices actually voted to put the case on the Supreme Court docket.
The case is Brunson v. Alma Adams, et al. Congresswoman Alma Adams’ (D-NC) name appears on the title of the case because the 385 defendants are alphabetized. It’s now listed on the Supreme Court site as Docket No. 22-380. And just so you don’t think I’m spreading Russian disinformation; you can read Brunson’s complaint for yourself HERE.
Here’s the gist of the case. There were an unprecedented amount of fraud claims in the 2020 election, emanating from many different states. More than 100 Members of Congress – all Republicans and led by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) – asked for the electoral process to be paused. Citing precedent from a past presidential election, those patriotic legislators called for the formation of a commission to investigate the fraud claims before certifying the election.
385 Members of Congress failed to uphold their duty to defend the Constitution, by refusing to form a commission to investigate the unprecedented amounts of fraud. In essence, Brunson is arguing that those Representatives and Senators were guilty of dereliction of duty; committed treason by aiding and abetting an enemy of the United States (the fraud and election rigging); and further notes that the US Court system has long held that “fraud vitiates everything,” which means that a fraudulent election is not a legitimate election.
There is absolutely precedent for what Ted Cruz and the other lawmakers were requesting. In 1876 there were intensely disputed allegations of fraud in the Rutherford B. Hayes-Samuel Tilden presidential race. To resolve the allegations of fraud, Congress appointed a commission of five US Senators, five US Representatives, and five US Supreme Court Justices. Their task, which they carried out, was to investigate and resolve the allegations of fraud, so the actual winner of the election could be determined.
That actually happened. Democracy survived. They delayed the electoral process and didn’t certify the results until after the investigation was concluded. Tilden had 184 electoral votes when the process started, and Hayes had 165. To be declared the winner, one of them needed 185 votes for an electoral college majority. There were 20 outstanding electoral votes between the states of Florida, Oregon, Louisiana, and South Carolina.
All of those votes ended up being awarded to Hayes, due to fraud in those four states – and Hayes became President.
Congress ignored this legal precedent in 2020 and many of them simply jumped around and told us it was the “safest and most secure election ever.” That was a lie, obviously. Brunson’s lawsuit accuses every Member of Congress of treason for not defending the Constitution, because they didn’t pause the electoral process to carry out an investigation.
Great, so what’s the remedy if Brunson wins his case? Joe Biden, Mike Pence, Nancy Pelosi, Kamala Harris, and the 385 traitors in Congress will be removed from office and barred from ever holding public office again. Sounds like a long shot, right?
But as I try to think through this and second-guess the Supreme Court, I have to wonder… why have they agreed to hear the case at all? They have three options with Brunson v. Alma Adams, et al. Hear the case and do nothing, letting the lower court ruling to dismiss the case stand. (That would be extremely weird, since they agreed to hear the case.) They can review the case and issue an opinion, which would also be strange. What would the opinion be if they didn’t dismiss it? “Fraud happened, but what can you do?!”
