Former Arkansas governor and Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee published a piece recently calling attention to the Brunson v. Adams case set to be heard before the U.S. Supreme Court this week.
What the plaintiff, Raland Brunson of Ogden, Utah, and his three brothers seek is the removal of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris from office, arguing members of Congress failed to fulfill their constitutional duty on Jan. 6, 2021, by not reviewing allegations of fraud in the 2020 presidential election.
The argument the Brunson brothers make in their lawsuit is that 388 lawmakers named in their court filing took an oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution “against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
The suit names Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, former VP Pence, and 385 members of Congress. Those are all the members who voted against a proposition for them to investigate claims that “enemies of the Constitution rigged the 2020 election.” This case is not about whether or not election fraud occurred, rather, whether or not these people violated their oath by failing to investigate credible allegations of election fraud.
Yet, they “purposely thwarted all efforts to investigate [allegations of fraud in the 2020 election], whereupon this enemy was not checked or investigated, therefore the Respondents adhered to this enemy.”
All 388 of these above-mentioned persons have sworn an oath to Protect and Defend the United States Constitution.
“Sit down; I guarantee this Supreme Court story is real,” Huckabee wrote.
“The Supreme Court has agreed to a hearing for a case that could conceivably — PLEASE consider this the longest of long shots — overturn the election of 2020, throw out all the legislators who voted to certify the results and leave them ineligible to run for office ever again, even for town dogcatcher,” he explained.
The case is set for oral argument on Friday, Jan. 6, the second anniversary of the Capitol protests.
From Mike Huckabee’s substack:
As Joshua Philipp reported in a podcast for EPOCH TV, the case Brunson v. Alma Adams, et. al., alleges that members of Congress who voted against the proposed 10-day audit of the 2020 elections and certifying those results — with no investigation after being “properly warned” of a credible threat from enemies of the Constitution — were violating their oath of office to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic.” It says that “this action unilaterally violated the rights of every citizen of the U.S.A. and perhaps the rights of every person living, and all courts of law.”
If SCOTUS ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, the remedy would conceivably involve removing the sitting President and Vice President and all those representatives and empower the Court to authorize the swearing-in of the rightful President and Vice President. Not kidding; that’s the remedy the plaintiffs are asking for.
The Brunson brothers are an interesting group –- literally a band of brothers, as they play in a trumpet band. Here they are, with their summary of the suit, which was reportedly written by just themselves, without legal counsel (!).
Note: Philipp’s report was made before SCOTUS agreed to hear the case, and he said then he would be “very surprised” if they did. So I guess he’s very surprised right now. Actually, I am, too, considering the way the Court refused to look into those very allegations in the weeks after the election, when they were brought by President Trump. (Of course, now we know much more about the lengths to which Trump’s enemies went to interfere with the outcome. Maybe enough Justices are feeling some guilt right now about calling the issue “moot.”)
Philipp also pointed out that this segment of his show, “Crossroads,” would not be allowed on YouTube. (Good news, though: he can now post the link on Twitter!) We’ll include the EPOCH TV link here…
The argument in this case is that by not looking into serious allegations of election fraud, those who voted to confirm the results of the 2020 election broke their oath of office and are ineligible to run for any elected office again. To give you an idea of the scope of the potential fallout, Kamala Harris is in that group, and so is Mike Pence.
This started as two separate lawsuits brought by four brothers in Utah, but only one of them is advancing to the Supreme Court. To get it there, the brothers bypassed the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, where it was stalled, by saying in a cover letter that this suit was a matter of national security. The Court was apparently so interested in this case that they received a personal call from the Court clerk asking how soon they could get their documents together. The brothers got it all to them in one week.
The suit names President Biden, VP Harris, former VP Pence, and 385 members of Congress, and, no, that is not a typo. Those are all the members who voted against a proposition for them to investigate claims that “enemies of the Constitution rigged the 2020 election.” So, this case is NOT about whether or not election fraud occurred. It’s about whether or not these people violated their oath by failing to investigate credible allegations of election rigging by enemies of the Constitution –- allegations that had been made by over a hundred of their own colleagues.
In their words: “Is this about a rigged election? No, it’s about the members of Congress who voted AGAINST the investigation, thereby thwarting the investigation. Was this a clear violation of their oath? YES.” The suit says this violation is an act of treason and fraud. “A successfully rigged election has the same effect as an act of war: to place into power whom the victor wants, which in this case is Biden, who, if not stopped immediately, will continue to destroy the fundamental freedoms of Brunson and all U.S. Citizens and courts of law.”
“When the allegations of a rigged election came forward, the Respondents had a duty under law to investigate it or be removed from office.”
According to Philipp, a finding for the plaintiffs would “also restore Trump to office because he would have been the legitimate candidate.” We’re not yet sure how that part of the argument works but are researching. Even if a majority of the Justices found merit in this case, would they be willing to do something this huge? They would be keeping in mind the potential consequences and, of course, possible effects on the balance of power. If this happened, it would be the wildest things ever to happen within our government — a purge, really, which, I have to admit, sounds pretty great with the state our country is currently in. But you know the saying, if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
Here are some thoughts on the case from Timothy Canova, a professor of constitutional law at the Nova Southeastern University Shepard Broad College of Law.
Tim Canova: Supreme Court Considers Case Seeking to Overturn 2020 Presidential Election