Congress is the legislative branch and is not equipped or obligated to investigate all or any claims of election fraud. The judicial branch already responded negatively to those claims and Congress members were free to either accept or reject the official election results. SCOTUS can't compel Congress to act upon those election fraud claims, while it probably could overturn lower court rulings on specific election fraud cases if compelling evidence were presented.
: The Carter/Beanz article is the one referred to by a previous
: reader :
: https://www.uncoverdc.com/2022/12/30/the-truth-about-the-brunson-case/
: Sent by reader N.: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
: equal time_BRUNSON Reply to Carter/Beanz
: https://t.me/BrunsonBrothersSCOTUS/244
: https://t.me/BrunsonBrothersSCOTUS/245
: Dear Adam Carter & Tracy Beanz: In regard to your article
: dated December 30, 2022, titled “The Truth About the
: Brunson Case”, it seems that you purposely ignored the
: following controlling points in order to sustain your
: captured title. This is flawed reporting and not
: acceptable.
: 1. SCOTUS has laid out its rule requirements that must be met
: before it will grant a writ. Addressing the contents of a
: writ in Brunson’s case, are Rules 11 and 12. These two
: rules note that a writ will be granted for compelling
: reasons, for such conflicts between appellate courts over
: the same important matter, or where there is a serious
: question of law. These are just a few examples that are
: neither controlling nor do they measure the Court’s
: discretion nor indicate the reasons for the court's
: consideration.
: Adam and Tracy, you do not know the mind of SCOTUS in relation
: to the Brunson case and you have acted as if you do. “The
: Truth About the Brunson Case”?
: Before making such a claim you should have contacted me. Your
: claim is not true and effectively gives aid and comfort to
: an enemy of the United States of America.
: 2. Brunson’s writ points out that the purpose of war is to put
: into power its victor. Brunson also points out that a
: rigged election accomplishes the same thing, only there is
: not an immediate loss of life and property. A rigged
: election IS an act of war. Brunson’s writ further alleges
: that the respondents refused to investigate the allegations
: that the 2020 presidential election was rigged.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. Their refusal to do an investigation into the
: allegations of a rigged election gave aid and comfort to
: this enemy that has waged war under the guise of a ‘fair’
: election. This is an act of treason. Adam and Tracy, this
: is a very strong and serious reason, our national security,
: compelling SCOTUS to grant Brunson’s writ. How did you miss
: this point?!
: 3. SCOTUS is also bound by its oath of office. With this oath,
: they are BOUND to stop a war when given that opportunity.
: Brunson’s case gives SCOTUS that opportunity.
: Adam and Terry, what makes you think you know what powers
: SCOTUS has and, does not have, under the Brunson’s case?
: 4. Brunson’s writ alleges “Due to the uniqueness of this case,
: the trial court does have proper authority to remove the
: Respondents from their offices under 18 U.S. Code § 2381
: which states “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United
: States, levies war against them or adheres to their
: enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United
: States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer
: death, or shall be imprisoned not less then five years and
: fined under this title but not less than $10,000, and shall
: be incapable of holding any office under the United
: States.”
: A court adjudicating that the respondents, who have taken the
: Oath of Office, to be incapable of holding their offices
: because they have surrendered to a domestic enemy, means
: nothing without such removal from office.” SCOTUS has the
: power to remove ALL the respondents from office under
: Brunson’s case.Adam and Terry, what you have said in your
: article is not factual.
: 5. Again, under war powers (look them up yourself) SCOTUS,
: under Brunson’s case, has the power to remove the
: respondents from office and completely adjudicate the case
: to end the war. Adam and Terry, Isn’t it a simple
: conclusion that anybody, I mean ANYBODY, who is found to be
: in a position to stop a war against America and refuses to
: do so can be found guilty of treason? Think about it!!
: I do not feel compelled to continue further at this time in
: pointing out how false your story is. I feel that what I
: have pointed out is enough to help stop you from producing
: such articles.
: We invite you to retract your claims.
: You should be strongly promoting Brunson’s case in the name of
: justice and freedom and pray that SCOTUS removes the
: respondents from office for giving aid and comfort to an
: enemy of the Constitution of the United States thus ending
: this war. Which side are you on?
: Deron Brunson
: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~