Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Showing posts with label January 6. Show all posts
Showing posts with label January 6. Show all posts

Monday, January 9, 2023

Under The Radar: Brunson V. Adams

Read about Brunson v. Adams HERE

Excerpt (the first few paragraphs, emphases mine):
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 Jan. 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.
The final paragraph reads as follows:
The fact that the Brunson case has made it to the Court’s docket suggests profound concerns about a lawless Jan. 6 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.
Read the entire essay HERE.

Your thoughts?  

For my part, I'm wondering if Brunson v. Adams is now dead at the SCOTUS level.  Is it?  Help me out here.  It looks to me that the case was denied in SCOTUS conference.  But that the case ever made it to the SCOTUS level speaks volumes!

Wednesday, July 27, 2022

Politicized Justice In America

Tucker Carlson, regardless of what you think of him, makes very important points in the video below. Watch and consider: 


How can our republic be united and survive survive such a tainted justice system? "Equality under the law" is dead!

Beyond Orwellian.

Kafka-esque.

Depressing.

Wednesday, June 29, 2022

That January 6th Show


Silverfiddle Rant!

My problem with the Democrat-produced Jan 6th Show is that it is unbalanced and one-sided.  A serious inquiry would expose all the evidence and open it to critical scrutiny and cross examination in an adversarial system that is essential to fact finding. 



This is not a real hearing.  It is an entertainment show that is one-sided, does not release all testimony to the public, and hides the evidence except for the most salacious or damning cherry-picked details guaranteed to titillate and outrage.  

Case in point:  

Have you heard the one about how President Trump raged on the day of his big speech 

Former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson recounted her gripping tale of that day.  It all sounds plausible and in-character for El Donaldo.  We are led to believe this was "Breaking News!" when actually, this was at least her fifth time testifying before the panel.  Yes, she had told them all this already, but the producers wanted her dramatic retelling on prime time.

Did you hear how a raging Trump grabbed the wheel of his vehicle and assaulted a Secret Service Agent? 

One problem.  We find out Hutchinson did not provide eye-witness testimony.  She was recounting what someone told her.  That is called hearsay, and the Secret Service is saying the incident in the vehicle never happened.  

Democrats could do a real public service and explore the question of which is funnier: An angry President Trump throwing ketchup-laden cheeseburgers at the wall, or an enraged Hellary on her losing election night heaving a sheet cake at the giant flat screen TV.

Democrats are not providing us a serious Watergate or Iran Contra Hearing.  This is a National Enquirer style political propaganda mini-series.


See also:  

Wednesday, June 15, 2022

Tittle-Tattle for Dummies


Silverfiddle Rant!
I read that our nation has suffered a precipitous decline in book reading over the past decades, and then it hit me:  The Democrats' Jan 6 TV miniseries is a slickly produced video version of one of those DC gossip books written by so many former staffers with axes to grind or reputations to burnish.  



The emotional testimony of security officers adds nothing to any legal argument, but does provide drama and pathos to keep the easily-bored tuned in.  

The quick-cut snippets of testimony and commentary from former Trump officials are damning, and they effectively contribute to the emotional appeal of the Democrat Party's huffed-up "hearings" slamming (without rebuttal) the former president. All that's missing from the well-polished production is whoots from the audience and shouted hoots of "sick burn!" 

I give the Democrats props.  Somebody within the party--probably a young staffer--realized DC tell-all books no longer have a bombshell impact, and impatient voters won't sit for hours of boring testimony waiting for the "at long last, sir, have you no shame!" payoff.  So, they went for the well-staged Hollywood-style production. Bravo! It all looks so realistic and officious.  (The FEC is criminally remiss if they are not counting the network coverage as in-kind political contributions)
  
NPR lists Six Takeaways from the hearings so far.

What say you?


Related Links:

!--BLOCKING--