Case That Could Overturn 2020 Election To Be Reviewed By Supreme Court

a reply to: fringeofthefringe

Thanks for sharing the link, interesting interview. Loy is also interviewed in the Nino's corner vid I linked, as well as the Conservative Daily vid. Mostly the same info as in the interview that you linked.

It would be nice to see it upheld, I think it would be a big step toward addressing the corruption problem we have in this nation. Should be interesting to see how the court rules, either way.

January 2, 2023 - Take a Moment to Think Back 2 Years -

Evidence generated..."fingerprints" left behind, by execution of "Strategically Executed/Targeted Fraud".

Presidential Election 2020

Joe Biden won a record low number of counties in the United States by an alleged “winner” in 2020 – winning only 17% of the counties in the US.

Biden won fewer counties than Barack Obama, in his 2008 record-setting election.

President Trump won 2,496 counties in 2020. Joe Biden only 477.

Trump won 84% of America. Biden “won” 17%.

More at: www.thegatewaypundit.com...

If you present the above numbers in a case study, without revealing the winner, every person who sees them would confidently state that the candidate with 2,496 counties and 84% of America, would win the election.

Conversely, people would think you're on drugs if you tell them that the guy with 477 counties/17% of America supporting him, would win the Presidential election.

The case we are discussing is not about voter fraud but about the constitutional duty to investigate the over 5,000 sworn avidavids that witnessed fraud.
The crux of the case is the sworn oath to the constitution, is that going to be something politicians and judges are held accountable for?
If so then they were obligated to investigate said fraud.
The SCOTUS has two sworn oathes and other public servants have to swear an oath as well. Big question is....
Is that for show or is it a real sworn oath.

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: MetalThunder

"Fraud vitiates everything.”

Yes, if you can prove actual fraud.

A big "if".

Over here anyway.

It's nearly impossible to prove voter/election fraud and you know this and the courts know this , the very courts who would be used to prove fraud are the very courts whom would suffer should the fraud be proved.

Election and Voting procedures are purposefully insulated to protect the Privacy and Rights of the people voting but this in turn is what makes it almost impossible to prove fraud. You've seen 2,000 mules I assume ? What more proof do you need combine that with the 2022 midterms and yeah our Election system is very broken.

This GP article says that though the case was scheduled to be reviewed on Friday, we will most likely not hear an announcement until Monday:

The Brunson brothers’ case was expected to be looked into today. The US Supreme Court will make a decision on whether to hear this case today with an expected announcement on Monday.

www.thegatewaypundit.com...

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Regarding the Brunson vs Adams 2020 election case, 3 "Amicus Briefs" were rejected by the Supreme Court yesterday, Friday January 6th, during their "Conference".

Source: www.supremecourt.gov.../docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-380.html

Is the rejection(s) a good sign, or bad sign, for the SCOTUS taking up the case?

a reply to: carewemust

It doesn't seem like a bad thing for the case at first glance. It looks like the name on those briefs are someone representing the state of "New California", which is not even actually a state of course. Seems as though that might have been some possible political shenanigans, though I don't really know for sure, I haven't read those briefs.

I presume that it is possible to derail some cases like this by injecting some absurd legalese, so perhaps that was something of that nature. I really don't know for sure. I'd guess the Supreme Court rejecting them doesn't hurt the Brunsons' case though.

I expect we'll hear something about it tomorrow.

Petition Denied. Just like I said would happen.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
Petition Denied. Just like I said would happen.

So who really is the legal President of the United States?

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Can't say I'm surprised. A little disappointed perhaps, not surprised though.