Posted on 11/30/2022 4:59:32 AM PST by MtnClimber
"The Question: How can you support, and defend, the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic? Answer: You investigate. If there are claims that there is a threat, even if you don't believe there is a threat, you investigate. How else can you determine if there is a threat unless you investigate? You can't. Were there claims of a threat to the Constitution? Yes. Where did these serious claims come from? 100 members of Congress. What was the threat? That there were enemies of the Constitution who successfully rigged the 2020 election. Is this lawsuit about a rigged election? No, it's about the members of Congress who voted AGAINST the investigation thereby thwarting the investigation. Was this a clear violation of their oath? YES."
—Question of Law in the Supreme Court case known as Brunson v. Alma S. Adams; et al. (Biden, Harris, Pence & 385 Members of Congress)
They Broke Their Oaths
Loy, Raland, Deron, and Gaynor Brunson all witnessed what they believed to be the theft of the 2020 election and decided to file suit. However, the interesting approach that they have taken is not to make a formal complaint that the election was stolen; instead, they have chosen to sue members of the U.S. Congress who voted not to investigate whether any election irregularities may have occurred that could have affected the outcome. In other words, the Brunson Brothers were motivated to sue because these elected officials broke their oaths to protect the Constitution of the United States.
The Brunson Brothers believed that, to support and defend the Constitution, an investigation into possible fraud needed to take place. Otherwise, how could anyone know with certainty whether the election had been secure?
What shocked the Brunson Brothers was that only 147 members of the US Congress voted in support
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Oaths of Office are meaningless. What, you’re saying that someone that broke the Oath is going to - what? - burn in hell or something ? That’s ridiculous
Thank you for the links.
Long ago, Tracy Benz and I followed each other on Twitter. She does a great job on reporting things in DC and the nation.
When she was banned on Twitter, I lost track of her. Before that happened she had attacks on her home. If I remember correctly they actually set fire to it.
Her current twitter screen name is @tracybeanz_chat
There are others there that are to confuse anyone looking for her.
I’m not sure if Twitter will reinstate her original screen name. Elon Musk is doing that now.
She is a brave and perceptive lady.
Here is a recent interview of her, from her website (https://www.uncoverdc.com/):
Tracy Beanz joins Emerald Robinson to Discuss Election Day Debacle (Nov 23, 2022)
https://www.uncoverdc.com/2022/11/23/tracy-beanz-joins-emerald-robinson-to-discuss-election-day-debacle/
Thanks for that info and your background with Tracy.
She’s up and coming, deserves more exposure, obviously works extremely hard, puts her $$$ where her mouth is.
It will be summarily denied without opinion.
The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to remove members of Congress—that power is vested by the Constitution exclusively in the respective houses of Congress themselves. And even if it had jurisdiction, the Speech and Debate Clause would prohibit the court from punishment members of Congress for actions they took or failed to take there.
This is an Ex-Republic (thank you, Dr. Franklin).
No, it’s not.
Even if it gets heard, no elected official will be removed from office WITHOUT a trial. Yes it can be reasonably argued that there was treason, but until charged, tried, and convicted, there is no course of action to remove them from office.
I don’t think it takes much analysis to figure out that the Supreme Court is probably not going to effectively dissolve Congress based on some crank’s pro se filing.
Bttt.
5.56mm
Is Tracy Beanz a lawyer? Constitutional Scholar?
Tracy lays out the FACTS.
The facts are what’s important, everything else is irrelevant.
She has been at this a long time. She shifted gears a few years back and they canned her on Twitter.
If you go to her website, you will see she has a real collection of writers with her now.
Hadn’t read of this case prior.
Thanks for posting.
Baskets of heads will work but it will require a mob of about 10 million enraged patriots wiling to sacrifice upwards of half their numbers.
Blood is the price.
Except quo warranto actions.
Reading down this far, and there is not a single reference to plenary powers.
You did not answer my question.
I am assuming she is not.
She is very confident in her understanding and opinions. However, I have friends who are attorneys, and they view facts differently.
She lays out facts, but perhaps not all the facts.
I will wait for more experts to weigh in before dismissing this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.