BRUNSON V. ADAMS 22-380

This action is against 388 federal officers in their official capacities which include President Joseph Robinette Biden Jr, Vice President Kamala Harris, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and former Vice President Michael Richard Pence (“Respondents”).

All the Respondents have taken the required Oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and as such they are liable for consequences when they violate the Oath of Office.

Respondents were properly warned and were requested to make an investigation into a highly covert swift and powerful enemy, as stated below, seeking to destroy the Constitution and the United States, purposely thwarted all efforts to investigate this, whereupon this enemy was not checked or investigated, therefore the Respondents adhered to this enemy.

Because of Respondents' intentional refusal to investigate this enemy, Petitioner Raland J Brunson (“Brunson”) brought this action against Respondents because he was seriously personally damaged and violated by this action of Respondents, and  consequently this action unilaterally violated the rights of every citizen of the U.S.A. and perhaps the rights of every person living, and all courts of law.

 
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/DocketFiles/html/Public/22-380.html

http://ralandbrunson.com/

Named persons in their capacities as United States Senators:

TAMMY  BALDWIN; JOHN BARRASSO; MICHAEL F. BENNET; MARSHA BLACKBURN; RICHARD  BLUMENTHAL; ROY BLUNT; CORY A. BOOKER; JOHN BOOZMAN; MIKE BRAUN; SHERROD  BROWN; RICHARD BURR; MARIA CANTWELL; SHELLEY CAPITO; BENJAMIN L.  CARDIN; THOMAS R. CARPER; ROBERT P. CASEY JR.; BILL CASSIDY; SUSAN M.  COLLINS; CHRISTOPHER A. COONS; JOHN CORNYN; CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO; TOM  COTTON; KEVIN CRAMER; MIKE CRAPO; STEVE DAINES; TAMMY DUCKWORTH; RICHARD  J. DURBIN; JONI ERNST; DIANNE FEINSTEIN; DEB FISCHER; KIRSTEN E.  GILLIBRAND; LINDSEY GRAHAM; CHUCK GRASSLEY; BILL HAGERTY; MAGGIE HASSAN;  MARTIN HEINRICH; JOHN HICKENLOOPER; MAZIE HIRONO; JOHN HOEVEN; JAMES  INHOFE; RON JOHNSON; TIM KAINE; MARK KELLY; ANGUS S. KING, JR.; AMY  KLOBUCHAR; JAMES LANKFORD; PATRICK LEAHY; MIKE LEE; BEN LUJAN; CYNTHIA  M. LUMMIS; JOE MANCHIN III; EDWARD J. MARKEY; MITCH MCCONNELL; ROBERT  MENENDEZ; JEFF MERKLEY; JERRY MORAN; LISA MURKOWSKI; CHRISTOPHER MURPHY;  PATTY MURRAY; JON OSSOFF; ALEX PADILLA; RAND PAUL; GARY C. PETERS;  ROB PORTMAN; JACK REED; JAMES E. RISCH; MITT ROMNEY; JACKY ROSEN; MIKE  ROUNDS; MARCO RUBIO; BERNARD SANDERS; BEN SASSE; BRIAN SCHATZ; CHARLES  E. SCHUMER; RICK SCOTT; TIM SCOTT; JEANNE SHAHEEN; RICHARD C. SHELBY;  KYRSTEN SINEMA; TINA SMITH; DEBBIE STABENOW; DAN SULLIVAN; JON TESTER;  JOHN THUNE; THOM TILLIS; PATRICK J. TOOMEY; HOLLEN VAN; MARK R. WARNER;  RAPHAEL G. WARNOCK; ELIZABETH WARREN; SHELDON WHITEHOUSE; ROGER F.  WICKER; RON WYDEN; TODD YOUNG

Named persons in their capacities as United States House Representatives:

ALMA  S. ADAMS; PETE AGUILAR; COLIN Z. ALLRED; MARK E. AMODEI; KELLY  ARMSTRONG; JAKE AUCHINCLOSS; CYNTHIA AXNE; DON BACON; TROY BALDERSON;  ANDY BARR; NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN; KAREN BASS; JOYCE BEATTY; AMI BERA;  DONALD S. BEYER JR.; GUS M. ILIRAKIS; SANFORD D. BISHOP JR.; EARL  BLUMENAUER; LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER; SUZANNE BONAMICI; CAROLYN BOURDEAUX;  JAMAAL BOWMAN; BRENDAN F. BOYLE; KEVIN BRADY; ANTHONY G. BROWN; JULIA  BROWNLEY; VERN BUCHANAN; KEN BUCK; LARRY BUCSHON; CORI BUSH; CHERI  BUSTOS; G. K. BUTTERFIELD; SALUD 0. CARBAJAL; TONY CARDENAS; ANDRE  CARSON; MATT CARTWRIGHT; ED CASE; SEAN CASTEN; KATHY CASTOR; JOAQUIN  CASTRO; LIZ CHENEY; JUDY CHU; DAVID N. CICILLINE; KATHERINE M. CLARK;  YVETTE D. CLARKE; EMANUEL CLEAVER; JAMES E. CLYBURN; STEVE COHEN; JAMES  COMER; GERALD E. CONNOLLY; JIM COOPER; J. LUIS CORREA; JIM COSTA; JOE  COURTNEY; ANGIE CRAIG; DAN CRENSHAW; CHARLIE CRIST; JASON CROW; HENRY  CUELLAR; JOHN R. CURTIS; SHARICE DAVIDS; DANNY K. DAVIS; RODNEY DAVIS;  MADELEINE DEAN; PETER A. DEFAZIO; DIANA DEGETTE; ROSAL DELAURO; SUZAN K.  DELBENE; ANTONIO DELGADO; VAL BUTLER DEMINGS; MARK DESAULNIER; THEODORE  E. DEUTCH; DEBBIE DINGELL; LLOYD DOGGETT; MICHAEL F. DOYLE; TOM EMMER;  VERONICA ESCOBAR; ANNA G. ESHOO; ADRIANO ESPAILLAT; DWIGHT EVANS; RANDY  FEENSTRA; A. DREW FERGUSON IV; BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK; LIZZIE LETCHER;  JEFF FORTENBERRY; BILL FOSTER; LOIS FRANKEL; MARCIA L. FUDGE; MIKE  GALLAGHER; RUBEN GALLEGO; JOHN GARAMENDI; ANDREW R. GARBARINO; SYLVIA R.  GARCIA; JESUS G. GARCIA; JARED F. GOLDEN; JIMMY GOMEZ; TONY GONZALES;  ANTHONY GONZALEZ; VICENTE GONZALEZ; JOSH GOTTHEIMER; KAY GRANGER; AL  GREEN; RAUL M.xGRIJALVA; GLENN GROTHMAN; BRETT GUTHRIE; DEBRA A.  HAALAND; JOSH HARDER; ALCEE L. HASTINGS; JAHANA HAYES; JAIME HERRERA  BEUTLER; BRIAN HIGGINS; J. FRENCH HILL; JAMES A. HIMES; ASHLEY HINSON;  TREY HOLLINGSWORTH; STEVEN HORSFORD; CHRISSY HOULAHAN; STENY H. HOYER;  JARED HUFFMAN; BILL HUIZENGA; SHEILA JACKSON LEE; SARA JACOBS;  PRAMILA JAYAPAL; HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES; DUSTY JOHNSON; EDDIE BERNICE  JOHNSON; HENRY C. JOHNSON JR.; MONDAIRE JONES; DAVID P. JOYCE; KAIALPI  KAHELE; MARCY KAPTUR; JOHN KATKO; WILLIAM R. KEATING; RO KHANNA; DANIEL  T. KILDEE; DEREK KILMER; ANDY KIM; YOUNG KIM; RON KIND; ADAM KINZINGER;  ANN KIRKPATRICK; RAJA KRISHNAMOORTHI; ANN M. KUSTER; DARIN LAHOOD; CONOR  LAMB; JAMES R. LANGEVIN; RICK LARSEN; JOHN B. LARSON; ROBERT E. LATTA;  JAKE LATURNER; BRENDA L. LAWRENCE; AL LAWSON JR.; BARBARA LEE; SUSIE  LEE; TERESA LEGER FERNANDEZ; ANDY LEVIN; MIKE LEVIN; TED LIEU; ZOE  LOFGREN; ALAN S.LOWENTHAL; ELAINE G. LURIA; STEPHEN F. LYNCH; 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; JERROLD  NADLER; GRACE F. NAPOLITANO; RICHARD E. NEAL; JOE NEGUSE; DAN NEWHOUSE;  MARIE NEWMAN; DONALD NORCROSS; ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ; TOM O'HALLERAN;  ILHAN OMAR; FRANK PALLONE JR.; JIMMY PANETTA; CHRIS PAPPAS; BILL  PASCRELL JR.; DONALD M. PAYNE JR.; NANCY PELOSI; ED PERLMUTTER; SCOTT H.  PETERS; DEAN PHILLIPS; CHELLIE PINGREE; MARK POCAN; KATIE PORTER;  AYANNA PRESSLEY; DAVID E. PRICE; MIKE QUIGLEY; JAMIE RASKIN; TOM REED;  KATHLEEN M. RICE; CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS; DEBORAH K. ROSS; CHIP ROY;  LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD; RAUL RUIZ; C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER; BOBBY L.  RUSH; TIM RYAN; LINDA T. SANCHEZ; JOHN P. SARBANES; MARY GAY SCANLON;  JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY; ADAM B. SCHIFF; BRADLEY SCOTT SCHNEIDER; KURT  SCHRADER; KIM SCHRIER; AUSTIN SCOTT; DAVID SCOTT; ROBERT C. SCOTT; TERRI  A. SEWELL; BRAD SHERMAN; MIKIE SHERRILL; MICHAEL K. SIMPSON; ALBIO  SIRES; ELISSA SLOTKIN; ADAM SMITH; CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH; DARREN SOTO;  ABIGAIL DAVIS SPANBERGER; VICTORIA SPARTZ; JACKIE SPEIER; GREG  STANTON; PETE STAUBER; MICHELLE STEEL; BRYAN STEIL; HALEY M. STEVENS;  STEVE STIVERS; MARILYN STRICKLAND; THOMAS R. SUOZZI; ERIC SWALWELL; MARK  TAKANO; VAN TAYLOR; BENNIE G. THOMPSON; MIKE THOMPSON; DINA TITUS;  RASHIDA TLAIB; PAUL TONKO; NORMA J. TORRES; RITCHIE TORRES; LORI TRAHAN;  DAVID J. TRONE; MICHAEL R. TURNER; LAUREN UNDERWOOD; FRED UPTON; JUAN  VARGAS; MARC A. VEASEY; FILEMON VELA; NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ; ANN WAGNER;  MICHAEL WALTZ; DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ; MAXINE WATERS; BONNIE WATSON  COLEMAN; PETER WELCH; BRAD R. WENSTRUP; BRUCE WESTERMAN; JENNIFER  WEXTON; SUSAN WILD; NIKEMA WILLIAMS; FREDERICA S. WILSON; STEVE WOMACK;  JOHN A. YARMUTH; DON YOUNG

JOSEPH ROBINETTE BIDEN JR in his capacity of President of the United States; MICHAEL RICHARD PENCE in his capacity as former Vice President of the United States, and KAMALA HARRIS in her capacity as Vice President of the United States  

While there has been much public attention on the U.S. Supreme Court’s present consideration of the “independent state legislature” theory in Moore v. Harper involving North Carolina’s redistricting, that case would not immediately upend the 2020 Presidential Election. In contrast, a little-known case that appeared recently on the Court docket could do just that. The case of Brunson v. Adams, not even reported in the mainstream media, was filed pro se by ordinary American citizens – four brothers from Utah — 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 January 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. Such a course would seem to be clear  violations of Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution which provides  that Justices “shall hold their Offices during good Behavior.” In  addition to such institutional threats to the Supreme Court, several  Justices and their families have been living under constant threats to  their personal security since the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

Perhaps these institutional and security threats have provided  powerful incentives for the Court to put Brunson v. Adams on its dockets  as a shield to deter any efforts by the lame duck Congress to infringe  on the Court’s independence. Or perhaps conservatives on the Court are  serious about using the Brunson case as a sword to remove public  officials who they believe have violated their constitutional Oaths of  office by rubber-stamping Electors on Jan. 6th without first conducting  any investigation of serious allegations of election fraud and foreign  election interference.

Moreover, recent weeks have brought a cascade of news suggesting the  likelihood of an impending constitutional crisis that could be difficult  to resolve without the Court’s intervention. It is now clear that the  Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was colluding with social media  giants Twitter and Facebook to censor news of Hunter Biden’s laptop in  the weeks leading up to the 2020 election – a most egregious First  Amendment violation intended to rig the election outcome and perhaps to  install an unaccountable and criminal puppet government. Meanwhile, the  January 6th committee may soon send a criminal referral to the Justice  Department to arrest President Trump even though his reinstated tweets  are a reminder that he was not calling for insurrection but for peaceful  protest on January 6th. More recently, the Department of Homeland  Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) was  reportedly working with Big Tech to censor election critics.

Supreme Court Justices may well see these approaching storm clouds and conclude that the Court’s intervention is necessary to prevent larger civil unrest resulting from constitutional violations that are undermining public trust and confidence in the outcomes of both the 2020 and 2022 elections. When criminals break the law — state and federal statutes — to rig an election, we are dependent on prosecutions by law enforcement agencies that have sadly become politicized and complicit. When they break the Constitution — the supreme law of the land — to rig an election, the only recourse may be the Supreme Court or military tribunals.

As the Brunson lawsuit argues, all of Congress was put on notice prior to its January 6th vote by more than a hundred of its own members detailing serious allegations of election frauds and calling for creation of an electoral commission to investigate the allegations.

Moreover, the Office of Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) was required to submit a report on foreign threats to the 2020 Presidential election by December 18, 2020. That deadline was set by executive order and by Congress itself. When December 18th came and went without ODNI submitting its report, Congress should have started asking questions and investigating. In fact, DNI John Ratcliffe announced on that day that the 17 U.S. intelligence agencies he was overseeing had found evidence of foreign election interference but were split as to its significance and whether such breach of national security was sufficient to overturn the outcome of the election. And yet there was no action whatsoever by Congress, no inquiry and no investigation. Instead, Congress approved the possibly fraudulent election results on January 6th without asking any questions of the DNI and the Intelligence Community.

When the results of the 1876 presidential election were in doubt, Congress created a special Electoral Commission made up of five House members, five Senators, and five Supreme Court Justices to investigate. In contrast, in early 2021 Congress had nearly two weeks to investigate before the January 20th date of the Presidential Inauguration. Had Congress waited even just one more day to January 7th, they would have received the long-awaited ODNI report reflecting a split in the Intelligence Community and the DNI’s own conclusion that the People’s Republic of China had interfered to influence the outcome of the presidential election. As Dr. Barry A. Zulauf, the Analytic Ombudsman for the Intelligence Community, concluded at the time, the Intelligence Community shamefully delayed their findings until after the January 6th Electoral College certification by Congress because of their political disagreements with the Trump administration. This paints a picture of collusion and conspiracy involving members of Congress and U.S. intelligence agencies to coverup evidence of foreign election interference and constituting the crime of High Treason.

The Brunson lawsuit does not claim the election was stolen, merely that a large majority of Congress, by failing to investigate such serious allegations of election rigging and breaches of national security, violated their Oaths to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic – an Oath also taken by Supreme Court Justices and members of the U.S. military.

The fact that the Brunson case has made it to the Court’s docket suggests profound concerns about a lawless January 6th Congressional committee, politicized federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies, and major constitutional violations intended to overthrow an elected government by manipulating the outcome of the presidential election.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/12/tim-canova-supreme-court-considers-case-seeking-overturn-2020-presidential-election/

107: This is an important case. The context of the case is that prior to the 2020 elections there was an Executive Order by President Trump September 12th 2018 that...required that the Director of National Intelligence use all available assets - the largest intelligence-gathering operation on planet earth in history, with more tools, more mechanisms, more personnel able to look at any subject, anywhere, any person - use that all to look for any signs of foreign interference in any Federal election from that point forward.

We  jump up to the November 3rd 2020 election. There were all sorts of allegations in the time leading up to the election of mischief, of malfeasance, of election officials doing things that were unlawful, such as putting drop boxes out, which violated some states' laws, the mail-out ballots and the mail-in ballots, all sorts of things that were questionable. Allowing anybody that had a driver's license to vote without verifying that they were US citizens or had a right to vote, that they weren't felons, etc.

With that in mind, the Executive Order said that within 45 days of any Federal election the Office of the  Director of National Intelligence would provide a report to the President and to the other relevant agency heads concerning any signs of foreign interference in the election. 42 days after the election Director Ratcliffe told news media that he would probably not be able to provide the report on time in the next three days, by December 18th. The reason was because he was getting push-back, he was getting non-cooperation, he was getting push-back from other agency directors, heads of other intelligence agencies within the 16 intelligence-gathering agencies in the Department of Homeland Security. They knew that there was Chinese interference in the election. Director Ratcliffe wanted to make a strong case that Chinese interference greatly affected the election. Other agency heads said that they were questioning how much weight to give their information concerning Chinese interference in the election. It wasn't a matter of whether or not China interfered in the election, it was how much weight to give that information. So rather than provide the report on December 18th timely, 45 days after the election, which wasn't expected to be a complete report, it was expected to be an interim report on which further analysis could happen that would give an indication do we have a problem here or not, there was no report provided...

A few days later Ted Cruz filed a document with the House and Senate saying that there needed to be a 10-day pause - a pause, period, but it was recommended at  least 10 days - to look at the election and verify that there weren't  problems in the election because he and 100 signers joining in this, dissenters, said you can't certify this election without first investigating.

The parallel occurrence that occurred historically was in 1877 when a 10-day set-aside was done and five members of the House, five members of the Senate and five members of the Supreme Court looked at the election for any signs of interference before they would certify it. That's what Ted Cruz was asking for. And, of course, if you found information that showed that there was some type of interference, that there had been foreign or domestic damage done to the election, that there would have to be some kind of corrective action taken. So Ted Cruz put that paper together and filed it with  everyone. But on January 6th Congress - with 2,000,000 Americans joining Ted Cruz and many others, including Director of National Intelligence  Ratcliffe, all saying there's a problem, there's data that shows that something is wrong with this election, Biden couldn't have won it from the basement, something is wrong, he had no people at the rallies,  something is wrong, we have thousands and thousands and thousands of  Americans saying that they observed malfeasance, wrongdoing, at the election sites - but Congress, without doing any investigation, and this  is where we get to the current case, Congress proceeded to certify the vote in spite of all these requests to look at it before certifying, to take 10 days to determine whether or not there was something wrong with the way the vote was conducted.

And remember, during this time period Attorney General Ken Paxton, out of Texas, and 31 other Attorneys General from across America, 32 total, went to the Supreme Court and said we would like you to issue an injunction, a pause, to go look at  these six states where the malfeasance appears to be the most extreme, where their actions were in violation even of their state law in the way they conducted the vote and it pushed the whole vote for the whole nation over to Biden in this closely divided election. The Supreme Court said you don't have standing and rejected it, turned it back. So with that in mind, there was plenty of angst, plenty of warnings. But Congress, instead of just pausing - remember, they could have taken 10  days, reviewed the election, come back on the 17th of January, and then if there was no malfeasance, if there was no wrongdoing, if there were no indications that a foreign power had interfered in the election process, they could have gone ahead and certified the vote and had the inauguration on the 20th. In fact, inaugurations were moved from later in the year, all the way out on March 6th, back to January 20th in the last century. So they technically could have even decided to pause and not certify the election or to review this.

Congress should have honored the dissenting members, those 100 Congressmen and Senators who were questioning was there a problem with the vote. They should have honored those 32 Attorneys General representing 32 states in the Union  who were saying there's a problem. Even if the Supreme Court said they don't have standing, Congress and the Senators should have honored their concern. Here's why: The Constitution is the contract between the American people and its government, its government officials, the people who hold these offices that make up the government, enforce the rules  and spend the money. They swear an Oath, every one of them when they take office. All these members of our government swear an Oath to protect the contract between the government and the people, the Constitution. They swear an Oath to protect it against 'all enemies foreign and domestic,' anybody that would try to come between the  American people and its government in a way that dilutes or damages or steals from the people through the use of the government or the misuse of the government. Because, remember, our government does a lot of  things. It polices. It spies. Its army goes out across the world. Our State Department works out deals between nations and supervises them. We  use our dollar to affect the way that nations transact between each other and across the world. Our government, our elected officials, carry out our wishes as the electors, all across the land. We vote, we put people in power who represent the way we think, what we want done across America. If somebody comes between us and our vote, if somebody manufactures, concocts, damages, a methodology that comes between the voters and the Constitution, that's an attack on the Constitution, on the contract between the American people and their government.

In this particular case, 100 members of Congress, led by Ted Cruz, and 32  states, represented by Ken Paxton and the other Attorneys General, all said there's a problem. Congress, if they were honoring their Oaths,  their vows to protect the Constitution against 'all enemies foreign and domestic,' would have paused - that's all they were asking for - and investigated to see if there had been interference in our election to put officials into positions of authority in our government here in the United States. When Congress proceeded - the House of Representatives and the Senators, 385 total, plus Pence, the 386th - proceeded to certify the election, when they voted to certify the election without doing any investigation, they failed to protect the contract between the American voters and their government, the Constitution. In doing so they violated their Oaths, which makes them unfit for office. If they won't protect the Constitution and honor their vows, then they are unfit  for office.

The lawsuit brought by the Brunson Brothers asks the  Supreme Court as a remedy to remove all those people who certified the election without investigating, who then put America at risk because they didn't verify that the American voters' wishes were being honored, and not an enemy who had infiltrated the voting system and concocted, manufactured, twisted, destroyed the vote of the American citizens, the American people, and thereby trampled on the Constitution, the contract between the American people and its government. When they didn't protect the Constitution from this enemy invasion, an attack, they violated their Oaths. They are unfit for office and should be removed, even now. Had they just done the most minor investigation, even if they only did a half-day investigation to hear a few witnesses, they could have done a kangaroo court and probably pulled it off and said, 'we looked at it, nothing here,' and moved on. But they didn't even do a perfunctory investigation. Why? Because they didn't want to hear any witnesses. They didn't want Director Ratcliffe saying there's Chinese interference in the election...

The Senate Intelligence Oversight Committee got a report tailored just for it on the 7th. Rather than do anything to attack, reverse, change what had happened the previous day, the Senate had made its decision and there was no further consideration. Done and over. Other agency heads and other oversight committees both in the  House and the Senate received reports...but there was no attempt to overturn or reverse or revisit their vote. They did no investigation and they were going to keep it that way. That was a violation of their Oaths because they didn't protect the Constitution against 'all enemies foreign and domestic.' And when the report was released on the 19th of January, it did again assert Director Ratcliffe saying that the interference was far greater than some of the agency people wanted to  acknowledge...

Here you had Cruz, Paxton and many others all saying we've got to investigate, something is horribly wrong on this election, and Congress ran full steam ahead with scissors in their hands screaming and yelling, 'No we're going to just do what we're going to do and nobody's getting in our way!' Why? Because they got the outcome that they wanted. They got the winner that they wanted.

Lisa Michaels: Not only that, their own seats might have been in jeopardy because many of these people in Congress and the Senate may not have legitimately won their race. So if they call foul on that they're kind of stuck because it might affect them as well, don't you think?

107:  Of course, and that was part of the contention, that they didn't want anybody looking at this because if you start digging into it, something is wrong. The relationships. The Hunter Biden stuff. We're now seeing Twitter releasing communications showing that the Hunter Biden Laptop story was being shut down at Twitter because it didn't fit certain people's situation and they wanted that shut down. They didn't want the American people to hear about that. There are all sorts of things that might have changed the way the world works and how people view their bought and paid for politicians. And what happened was that this election proceeded. Biden was put in office.

And elections have consequences, because there were very different views of how America should be governed and how America should interact with the rest of the world by the people that were placed in power. We now are on the brink of nuclear war with Russia. It starts in Europe but could spread across the world. We're in some kind of chaotic position with China and China exercising all sorts of authority and actions out across the China Sea and into the island chains near the Philippines. China itself is going through some type of internal turmoil with riots and protests across the country over the way that the people are being enslaved and governed. We have Iran in a similar condition. People have no real clue what's going on here...there's all sorts of turmoil across the country. And remember all the money that went to Iran, supposedly to pay back bills  in Iran? They got some airplane loads of cash, but then a big portion of that, the majority of it, the rest of it went up to the Ukraine and then was money-laundered through the Ukraine.

Lisa Michaels: Can we just explain to people that Ukraine is the epicenter of evil. We should not under any circumstances be defending Ukraine, which never registered their borders and is still a part of Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union. And the idea that we are sending our troops over there or one dime over there to these evil SOBs, I am furious about  this.

107: Well remember, who are we backing in Ukraine? The army that we're backing in Ukraine take their shirts off and display all their Nazi swastikas and emblems and everything else. All of their uniforms are embroidered and they're tattooed. So think about this, America is backing an army that emulates, that wants to be like, the  Nazis and the SS, who we defeated in WWII.

Lisa Michaels: A lot of them escaped to the Ukraine, right?

107: Yes. So who are we backing?

Lisa Michaels: We're backing the Nazis.

107:  We have many people who have parents who served in WWII in all sorts of  capacities. I was with a nurse the other day in her 90s who served in WWII on one of the ships treating the wounded and she was aghast at what has happened to America, what we're doing, who we're backing, where our money is going. She is just beside herself. She can't believe what's  happened to America.

So with that in mind, are we on the right side of history? And did we, in fact, elect this crew that's in the office of the President right now? Or did we not, and through subterfuge, through criminal operations within our electoral system, and  the way that the machines work, did somebody change the outcome of the election and thereby change the course of history for America and the world? If this Congress refused to do an investigation to verify the outcome of the election before they certified it, they did something that is treasonous.

But this is a civil lawsuit at the Supreme Court, and in this civil lawsuit the remedy for this suit is that the Supreme Court remove the right for those persons who voted to certify the election to hold office and that they be referred for criminal investigation by the appropriate agencies. If there was a foreign power that got a toehold into the elections, then there would be Military investigations...

So within this whole scenario the lawsuit is very, very, very simple. It's not convoluted, it's not hard to figure out. Did those people that certified the election on January 6th violate their Oath to protect the Constitution, the contract between the  American citizens and their government? Did those members who voted to certify the vote without doing any investigation, without being troubled by any level of investigation, even the most perfunctory, did they  place America at risk and were they in violation of their Oath to protect the contract between the citizens and their government, the Constitution? Did they violate their Oath to protect it against 'all enemies foreign and domestic'? If they did then they're not fit for office. They must be removed from office. That's the question before the Court. Were they required to do an investigation or not in order to protect the Constitution? If they were, and they didn't, they're out. The Court could find in favor of the plaintiffs, that they were required to do an investigation, and they didn't, and therefore they must have their ability to serve in government removed.

In fact, their certification of the vote itself would be nullified because they did not act constitutionally. That was an extra-constitutional act, a violation of the contract between the people and its government, and therefore  cannot be done. It's a fraud right from the outset and becomes null and void. That means that Biden is out, Harris is out, Pence is out, Trump comes back. 385 members of Congress have to leave office...

In this case, all those who are removed from office, those cases are also referred for criminal investigation, both domestically with the Justice Department and foreign with the Military as an act of treason, colluding with enemies of the United States foreign.

107 / Lisa Michaels 12.3.22

https://rumble.com/v1ypimo-juan-o.-savin-scotus-case-could-close-congress.html

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senators Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Ron Johnson  (R-Wis.), James Lankford (R-Okla.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), John Kennedy  (R-La.), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), and Mike Braun (R-Ind.), and  Senators-Elect Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), Bill  Hagerty (R-Tenn.), and Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) issued the following  statement in advance of the Electoral College certification process on  January 6, 2021:

"America is a Republic whose leaders are chosen in democratic  elections.  Those elections, in turn, must comply with the Constitution  and with federal and state law.

"When the voters fairly decide an election, pursuant to the rule  of law, the losing candidate should acknowledge and respect the  legitimacy of that election.  And, if the voters choose to elect a new  office-holder, our Nation should have a peaceful transfer of power.

"The election of 2020, like the election of 2016, was hard fought  and, in many swing states, narrowly decided.  The 2020 election,  however, featured unprecedented allegations of voter fraud, violations  and lax enforcement of election law, and other voting irregularities.

"Voter fraud has posed a persistent challenge in our elections,  although its breadth and scope are disputed.  By any measure, the  allegations of fraud and irregularities in the 2020 election exceed any  in our lifetimes.

"And those allegations are not believed just by one individual candidate.  Instead, they are widespread.  Reuters / Ipsos polling, tragically, shows that 39% of Americans believe ‘the election was  rigged.'  That belief is held by Republicans (67%), Democrats (17%), and  Independents (31%).

"Some Members of Congress disagree with that assessment, as do many members of the media.

"But, whether or not our elected officials or journalists believe  it, that deep distrust of our democratic processes will not magically  disappear.  It should concern us all.  And it poses an ongoing threat to  the legitimacy of any subsequent administrations.

"Ideally, the courts would have heard evidence and resolved these  claims of serious election fraud.  Twice, the Supreme Court had the  opportunity to do so; twice, the Court declined.

"On January 6, it is incumbent on Congress to vote on whether to  certify the 2020 election results.  That vote is the lone constitutional  power remaining to consider and force resolution of the multiple  allegations of serious voter fraud.

"At that quadrennial joint session, there is long precedent of  Democratic Members of Congress raising objections to presidential  election results, as they did in 1969, 2001, 2005, and 2017.  And, in  both 1969 and 2005, a Democratic Senator joined with a Democratic House  Member in forcing votes in both houses on whether to accept the  presidential electors being challenged.

"The most direct precedent on this question arose in 1877,  following serious allegations of fraud and illegal conduct in the  Hayes-Tilden presidential race.  Specifically, the elections in three  states-Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina-were alleged to have been  conducted illegally.

"In 1877, Congress did not ignore those allegations, nor did the  media simply dismiss those raising them as radicals trying to undermine  democracy.  Instead, Congress appointed an Electoral  Commission-consisting of five Senators, five House Members, and five  Supreme Court Justices-to consider and resolve the disputed returns.

"We should follow that precedent.  To wit, Congress should  immediately appoint an Electoral Commission, with full investigatory and  fact-finding authority, to conduct an emergency 10-day audit of the  election returns in the disputed states. Once completed, individual  states would evaluate the Commission's findings and could convene a  special legislative session to certify a change in their vote, if  needed.

"Accordingly, we intend to vote on January 6 to reject the  electors from disputed states as not ‘regularly given' and ‘lawfully  certified' (the statutory requisite), unless and until that emergency  10-day audit is completed.

"We are not naïve.  We fully expect most if not all Democrats,  and perhaps more than a few Republicans, to vote otherwise.  But support  of election integrity should not be a partisan issue.  A fair and  credible audit-conducted expeditiously and completed well before January  20-would dramatically improve Americans' faith in our electoral process  and would significantly enhance the legitimacy of whoever becomes our  next President.  We owe that to the People.

"These are matters worthy of the Congress, and entrusted to us to  defend.  We do not take this action lightly.  We are acting not to  thwart the democratic process, but rather to protect it.  And every one  of us should act together to ensure that the election was lawfully  conducted under the Constitution and to do everything we can to restore  faith in our Democracy."

https://www.cruz.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/joint-statement-from-senators-cruz-johnson-lankford-daines-kennedy-blackburn-braun-senators-elect-lummis-marshall-hagerty-tuberville