As you well know, election fraud and integrity have been major topics of discussion for some time now. Of course, most of today’s debate about it stems from the presidential election of 2020, in which numerous allegations of election fraud and unusual irregularities were brought forward, suggesting that the results of the election might have been compromised.
And yet, according to the powers that be, the Democrats who won majorities in the White House, the House of Representatives, and the US Senate, fraud did and does not exist. They were so adamant about that fact that real and true investigations into the outcome of 2020 and possible fraud cases didn’t even see the light of day, much less get launched.
Now, here we are in year three of Joe Biden White House tenure, and most of that talk has been swept under the rug.
But thanks to a recently docketed case by the US Supreme Court, that could change quickly.
Enter Raland Brunson, a Utah man who filed a lawsuit against Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, former Vice President Mike Pence, and the 385 members of Congress who certified the results of the 2020 presidential election and paved the way for Biden becoming our president.
He claims that all those allegations, or at least the larger one of election fraud, should have been investigated thoroughly before the election results were certified. And since they were not Biden, Harris, Pence, and all of Congress are guilty of treason and violating the US Constitution.
As such, Brunson, joined in the suit by his three brothers, says that Biden should be immediately removed from office and Trump installed as the nation’s rightful president.
Now, for a great many of you, that last bit seems a bit ridiculous. I mean, as I already mentioned, Biden has been in the Oval Office for three years. Isn’t it too late to reverse the 2020 election results?
Well, that may be.
However, this case just made it to the Supreme Court, so it must warrant some credibility, right?
Indeed, according to Supreme Court records, the case was put on docket or schedule back in late October. SCOTUS is set for a hearing on January 6. Seems rather fitting, doesn’t it? Seeing as how that will be the second anniversary of the day Americans went to the capital to protest the very same election results that are being discussed in this case…
According to the US Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, Brunson “alleged that before accepting the electoral votes on January 6, 2021, defendants intentionally refused to investigate evidence that the November 2020 presidential election was fraudulent.”
For Brunson, this was essentially “an act of war” against the US Constitution, as it violated the oath these government heads had taken to protect and uphold that very same document.
Now, as Tim Canova, a constitutional law scholar and professor at Nova Southeastern University’s Shepard Broad College of Law in Florida, says, SCOTUS is likely taking on the case to get ahead of a bit of damage control that could result, should the case gain traction in the media.
Brunson’s allegations and recently proven facts that the intelligence community colluded with social media to suppress anything negative about the Biden family have made the American people rather restless on the subject. The thought is that if SCOTUS doesn’t intervene, the US could find itself in a bit of a constitutional crisis.
However, that doesn’t mean that Brunson’s allegations aren’t worth hearing or are false.
As Canova says, the very fact that the case has made its way to the Supreme Court suggests that the high court has reason to believe that violations of our constitution may, in fact, have occurred during the certification of the 2020 election results as well as the actions of the January 6 congressional committee and an intelligence community that is supposed to remain impartial to politics.
Of course, that doesn’t mean that the Supreme Court will oust Biden from office. As I mentioned, some would say that too much time has passed for that to happen, and much would have to change to make it so. It would be a royal mess on the foreign policy side of things alone.
But should election integrity and voter fraud issues be ignored just because a transition this late in the game will be annoying?
What do you think?