You're right -- to a point. I was wrong -- to a point. I spoke to one of the Brunson brothers yesterday and got myself straightened out from the source.
The question is not about the validity of an election outcome per se. It is about a duty to investigate lawful complaints that pertain to allegations of 𝒆𝒍𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒊𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒇𝒆𝒓…
You're right -- to a point. I was wrong -- to a point. I spoke to one of the Brunson brothers yesterday and got myself straightened out from the source.
The question is not about the validity of an election outcome per se. It is about a duty to investigate lawful complaints that pertain to allegations of 𝒆𝒍𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒊𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 that had serious implications related to national security. Not vote counting per se.
Let's say the Congress does its duty, investigates, and they find sufficient evidence to prove foreign interference. We then have a national security issue, a possible state of war, and, lastly, an election issue.
If the above happens and Congress finds insufficient evidence to prove foreign interference and proves through its investigation that the electronic voting system is 100% secure and everybody's vote counted as cast, it would prove that at no time was national security at risk, election integrity has been proven, and the election stands. No foreign interference, no treason, no state of war, no election issue.
So, Fred, you contend the above does not pertain to federal officials' oath of office? That the above falls outside their duty to "protect and defend?" That not undertaking this investigation does not violate their oath?
OK.
As for your point about "the people" not having the power to elect the President? Who said they did? "Everybody knows," Fred, that in our constitutional republic voters vote to elect electors who then vote to elect the President. Come on, man!
I should have expanded on my Electoral College reference. It was too laconic to be understood. What I meant to imply was that the election fraud that occurred was at the state level popular elections, and not the EC. There was no vote fraud at the Electoral College, which is the only body that actually chooses our President - not the popular votes.
That said, there's no *legal* duty for Congress to investigate anything, whether or not they took an Oath to defend the Constitution. Their oath of office is ceremonial, not legal.
If this were not the case, the winning party could simply charge the losing party with violating their oaths every time the government switched parties. This is the stuff of Banana Republics - or used to be.
Ergo, they haven't "adhered to an Enemy" much less committed Treason (which by the way, can only be charged when our Republic has formally declared war on an Enemy.)
Nor does the Supreme Court have any power to un-do an election that has been decided by the Electoral College, and subsequently certified and accepted by Congress.
For these reasons, the Brunson case has no legal basis whatsoever - no matter how frustrated the American people are with the rampant frauds in our elections and holding offices in our houses of Congress.
I am in complete agreement with you that the popular votes were fraudulent. They obviously were, it seems to me. But that opinion does not equate with a legal requirement that Congress investigate anything. There's simply no such requirement in any federal statute I'm aware of.
Which brings up a problem (and perhaps a potential solution I mentioned in another thread yesterday.) The federal government ordinarily has zero Constitutional authority to oversee elections - even those for federal office. That's completely the jurisdiction of the states themselves.
The evil genius of the election stealing Democratic Party is that by corrupting elections they theoretically are beyond the scope and reach of the federal authorities. The only authorities they need to fear are run by their own Democratic (or RINO) state officials. So the Dems cheated their way to controlling our federal offices by corrupting our state offices. It's almost like the Achille's heel ejection port on the Death Star, if you'll excuse the silly popular reference.
However, the Voting Rights Act was enacted in the 1960's to fix another Democratic corruption - though one based on race instead of party. Prior to the VRA, state Democratic poll officials made it practically impossible for Southern blacks to vote. There was no way to address these racial disparities because the Feds had no power over elections.
Today I hear many people on the right warning us not to "federalize" elections. OK. But wasn't the Voting Rights Act effective at preventing race-based election fraud? Why shouldn't we adopt the same tactics?
We have to fix local election fraud, or else this nation is finished. It may well be too late. The "proton torpedo" may already have been launched.
Yup, I agree with your description. The election fraud is really quite simple. It's the electronic voting machines. They need to be eliminated. Paper ballots only, hand counted. Simple solution actually. Florida had fair elections this year due to the election reforms laws that were passed here (I believe we are the only state to have done so). The total vote was counted in one night. Thus the only state where the red wave was "visible".
But your conclusion may still happen:...We have to fix local election fraud, or else this nation is finished. It may well be too late. The "proton torpedo" may already have been launched... There is a division taking shape between the Bolsheviks, who control the Fed Gov't and many of the state and local gov'ts, and the people and states that remember what it means to be American. The people are already dividing themselves by leaving the Woke states and moving to the free states. Conversely, unhappy woke people who live in free states are moving to states where they are "free" to practice their Wokeism. As the Woke states and the Fed gov't go increasingly broke, eventually the free states will have to cut ties out of self-preservation or their productivity will be taxed to support the unproductive Woke governments. I don't know if this can be reversed. I do not believe the Bolsheviks will voluntarily give up power in 2024. They will entirely steal the election or they will not hold elections at all based on same national emergency they create which would prolly begin next year. I do not put anything past these people.
You're right -- to a point. I was wrong -- to a point. I spoke to one of the Brunson brothers yesterday and got myself straightened out from the source.
The question is not about the validity of an election outcome per se. It is about a duty to investigate lawful complaints that pertain to allegations of 𝒆𝒍𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒊𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 that had serious implications related to national security. Not vote counting per se.
Let's say the Congress does its duty, investigates, and they find sufficient evidence to prove foreign interference. We then have a national security issue, a possible state of war, and, lastly, an election issue.
If the above happens and Congress finds insufficient evidence to prove foreign interference and proves through its investigation that the electronic voting system is 100% secure and everybody's vote counted as cast, it would prove that at no time was national security at risk, election integrity has been proven, and the election stands. No foreign interference, no treason, no state of war, no election issue.
So, Fred, you contend the above does not pertain to federal officials' oath of office? That the above falls outside their duty to "protect and defend?" That not undertaking this investigation does not violate their oath?
OK.
As for your point about "the people" not having the power to elect the President? Who said they did? "Everybody knows," Fred, that in our constitutional republic voters vote to elect electors who then vote to elect the President. Come on, man!
I should have expanded on my Electoral College reference. It was too laconic to be understood. What I meant to imply was that the election fraud that occurred was at the state level popular elections, and not the EC. There was no vote fraud at the Electoral College, which is the only body that actually chooses our President - not the popular votes.
That said, there's no *legal* duty for Congress to investigate anything, whether or not they took an Oath to defend the Constitution. Their oath of office is ceremonial, not legal.
If this were not the case, the winning party could simply charge the losing party with violating their oaths every time the government switched parties. This is the stuff of Banana Republics - or used to be.
Ergo, they haven't "adhered to an Enemy" much less committed Treason (which by the way, can only be charged when our Republic has formally declared war on an Enemy.)
Nor does the Supreme Court have any power to un-do an election that has been decided by the Electoral College, and subsequently certified and accepted by Congress.
For these reasons, the Brunson case has no legal basis whatsoever - no matter how frustrated the American people are with the rampant frauds in our elections and holding offices in our houses of Congress.
I am in complete agreement with you that the popular votes were fraudulent. They obviously were, it seems to me. But that opinion does not equate with a legal requirement that Congress investigate anything. There's simply no such requirement in any federal statute I'm aware of.
Which brings up a problem (and perhaps a potential solution I mentioned in another thread yesterday.) The federal government ordinarily has zero Constitutional authority to oversee elections - even those for federal office. That's completely the jurisdiction of the states themselves.
The evil genius of the election stealing Democratic Party is that by corrupting elections they theoretically are beyond the scope and reach of the federal authorities. The only authorities they need to fear are run by their own Democratic (or RINO) state officials. So the Dems cheated their way to controlling our federal offices by corrupting our state offices. It's almost like the Achille's heel ejection port on the Death Star, if you'll excuse the silly popular reference.
However, the Voting Rights Act was enacted in the 1960's to fix another Democratic corruption - though one based on race instead of party. Prior to the VRA, state Democratic poll officials made it practically impossible for Southern blacks to vote. There was no way to address these racial disparities because the Feds had no power over elections.
Today I hear many people on the right warning us not to "federalize" elections. OK. But wasn't the Voting Rights Act effective at preventing race-based election fraud? Why shouldn't we adopt the same tactics?
We have to fix local election fraud, or else this nation is finished. It may well be too late. The "proton torpedo" may already have been launched.
Please use the term "Democrat" and "Democratic" correctly. There's absolutely nothing democratic about the Democrat party and their ilk.
Yup, I agree with your description. The election fraud is really quite simple. It's the electronic voting machines. They need to be eliminated. Paper ballots only, hand counted. Simple solution actually. Florida had fair elections this year due to the election reforms laws that were passed here (I believe we are the only state to have done so). The total vote was counted in one night. Thus the only state where the red wave was "visible".
But your conclusion may still happen:...We have to fix local election fraud, or else this nation is finished. It may well be too late. The "proton torpedo" may already have been launched... There is a division taking shape between the Bolsheviks, who control the Fed Gov't and many of the state and local gov'ts, and the people and states that remember what it means to be American. The people are already dividing themselves by leaving the Woke states and moving to the free states. Conversely, unhappy woke people who live in free states are moving to states where they are "free" to practice their Wokeism. As the Woke states and the Fed gov't go increasingly broke, eventually the free states will have to cut ties out of self-preservation or their productivity will be taxed to support the unproductive Woke governments. I don't know if this can be reversed. I do not believe the Bolsheviks will voluntarily give up power in 2024. They will entirely steal the election or they will not hold elections at all based on same national emergency they create which would prolly begin next year. I do not put anything past these people.