A Huge Case Is On The Verge of being heard by SCOTUS. Brunson Vs Adams Et Al. Alleges Hundreds Of Congress Members Breached Their Oaths.

KnightWhoSaysNit

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2010
9,960
11,096
1
You should have quit while you were behind. So American union workers are "lazy people" who are "hold[ing] the more productive people back?" Awesome. Brilliant thinking. John Birch would be proud of you.

Not what I said. Some are and some are not. That's the whole point. When I was in the workforce I had to compete. I was ranked (and paid/promoted) against my peers.

And you haven't given me one good reason why government money should be awarded only to businesses with union workers. Not one. The people you are penalizing are the people willing to work for less, which is entirely contrary to a free market system. In other words, its Marxism, just as Levin would highlight.

Not only are those people who are not in a union penalized, but they are being made to pay the taxes (and inflation) to cover the union workers. That should be an outrage to anyone with common sense.

This is the leftwing agenda. It's the vision of Lenin -- to force a national worker party against private ownership.
 

Hotshoe

Well-Known Member
Feb 15, 2012
28,483
45,873
1
Like a true leftist, you again resort to an attack on the source and used a lot of words to add little real content. I highlighted your "means of production" and "brainwashing" attempts.

When government regulates one industry, even to the point of indiscriminately shutting parts of it down, while then subsidizing other industries to compete in the same product area (energy), that is exactly what they are doing -- controlling the means of (energy) production. During the pandemic government even ordered businesses to be shut down. That is the ultimate CONTROL OF PRODUCTION. Your party even made certain spending contracts contingent upon the use of unions. That is an unbelievable breach of market principles and private ownership. It essentially goes against the principle of anti-trust. The government gets in the middle of competition.

As for brainwashing, that occurs subtly in all forms of media, right through education on campuses by professors, such as the likes of your own Robert Reich, a true leftwing socialist. The educators are part of the money pipeline from both the government and China. They are not going to lecture to kill the golden goose. This is part of the reason to "forgive" student debt. It's about buying votes, and throwing money at supporters within Education.

Yes people have a mind of their own. But when all of the imagery and information is presented by only one side with an agenda, to the exclusion of the other, then yes indeed they are manipulated. They become brainwashed. You only know what you can see or hear. That's it.

I attended college over 40 years ago. I studied the sciences and engineering. The leftwing takeover had not emerged at that time. Now the schools are all about attracting dollars and research grants. This is where Chinese money and Chinese "students" come into play. Nothing bad can be said of China. I'm not going to dig up the examples of free speech being crushed on campuses. You can find them on your own. But there's a big and obvious example: Biden has yet to say anything negative about a country that started a global pandemic and killed millions, many Americans. He was their grifter. You know this to be true. Just won't admit it. You deflect.
Don't tell him now, but Bernie has advocated for takeover of both the energy and Healthcare industry. It's like he's been under a rock.
 

KnightWhoSaysNit

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2010
9,960
11,096
1
Can't remember where I posted it, but I gave a concrete example of the effectiveness of how a smaller, non-union division could be highly successful relative to a larger, bureaucratic organization with unions. It had to do with the success of Saturn in Tennessee versus the utter failure of GM's small car manufacturing in Lordstown. When the latter took over the former, it died. This is why foreign manufacturers tend to prefer the non-union South over the union North. We should be grateful that they do some manufacturing here.

Unions are a deterrent. It's not rocket science to recognize that workers, both professional and labor, are a commodity. There is no way to change that short of socialist principles, which have been shown to fail throughout history.

We have a price to pay for our world police role. People think we can skirt that issue and still pay people more to retain higher living standards. In a word: No. Same goes with government bureaucracies that Democrats wish to grow. In a word: No.
 

LafayetteBear

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2009
48,967
21,892
1
Don't tell him now, but Bernie has advocated for takeover of both the energy and Healthcare industry. It's like he's been under a rock.
Put up or shut up, ASU Scholar. Show me proof that Bernie advocated for actual government takeover of either the energy industry or the health care industry.

And leaving aside the issue of whether or not Bernie advocated for such government takeover, has it in fact happened? We both know the answer to THAT one.

Nice try.
 

Hotshoe

Well-Known Member
Feb 15, 2012
28,483
45,873
1
Put up or shut up, ASU Scholar. Show me proof that Bernie advocated for actual government takeover of either the energy industry or the health care industry.

And leaving aside the issue of whether or not Bernie advocated for such government takeover, has it in fact happened? We both know the answer to THAT one.

Nice try.
Your on quite the roll with your obsession. Something tells me, you have serious issues. You also suck at research, and pretend you're intelligent. You're not, and you're lazy.

 

KnightWhoSaysNit

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2010
9,960
11,096
1
Put up or shut up, ASU Scholar. Show me proof that Bernie advocated for actual government takeover of either the energy industry or the health care industry.

And leaving aside the issue of whether or not Bernie advocated for such government takeover, has it in fact happened? We both know the answer to THAT one.

Nice try.

Bernie calls himself a "democratic socialist." His words, not anyone else's.

What does this mean? By "democratic" we can assume that he means he should be elected. Good luck getting a true socialist to conduct a transparent election.

By "socialist" we can assume what the word actually means -- government redistribution of wealth. Whether we want to call this government "owning the means of production" is immaterial. If government redistributes wealth per the word "socialist," it is distributing what gets produced. It is, in essence, owning production by having total power on its distribution.

From the Simple English Wikipedia:

Socialism is an economic and political system where the workers or the government own the buildings and tools that make goods and services like farms and factories. This can be achieved through decentralized and direct worker-ownership, or through centralized state-ownership of the means of production.

Bernie is on the record with regard to national healthcare. I don't think he is on the record (yet) on government owning all energy a la Venezuela, but you can bet he would support a windfall profits tax. And we already have gasoline taxes. So, while he might support citizens running the industry for profit, he would certainly not allow them to be profitable like the Big Tech companies that support the Democratic Party.

The article inserted above by @Hotshoe lays out how Sanders would take over power generation. Government simply takes over a portion of it and lays down draconian requirements for the rest. What I find reprehensible is the thought that Dems might officially declare a "national climate emergency" to get around the checks and balances intended for our government. They would do this without having China and others on board, so the "solutions to the emergency" would do nothing to resolve the "emergency."
 

richie83

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
1,778
1,826
1
Put up or shut up, ASU Scholar. Show me proof that Bernie advocated for actual government takeover of either the energy industry or the health care industry.

And leaving aside the issue of whether or not Bernie advocated for such government takeover, has it in fact happened? We both know the answer to THAT one.

Nice try.
you got owned by Hotshoe
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1Hammers1

LafayetteBear

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2009
48,967
21,892
1
Your on quite the roll with your obsession. Something tells me, you have serious issues. You also suck at research, and pretend you're intelligent. You're not, and you're lazy.

Sigh ... I read the article you linked. Here's a quote from that article which specifically describes Sanders' energy proposal:

[Sanders proposes] "creating a sort of 'public option' that would compete with the coal, natural gas and nuclear plants owned by privately owned power generators."

So creating a "public option that would compete with privately owned power generators" constitutes a government "takeover of the energy industry?" Doesn't the term "compete with privately owned power generators" clue you in to the notion that such privately owned power generators would continue to exist and operate? LOL, dude.

But at least you have a dim bulb like Richie83 to fluff your post (and perhaps you as well).
 
  • Like
Reactions: NJPSU

Hotshoe

Well-Known Member
Feb 15, 2012
28,483
45,873
1
Sigh ... I read the article you linked. Here's a quote from that article which specifically describes Sanders' energy proposal:

[Sanders proposes] "creating a sort of 'public option' that would compete with the coal, natural gas and nuclear plants owned by privately owned power generators."

So creating a "public option that would compete with privately owned power generators" constitutes a government "takeover of the energy industry?" Doesn't the term "compete with privately owned power generators" clue you in to the notion that such privately owned power generators would continue to exist and operate? LOL, dude.

But at least you have a dim bulb like Richie83 to fluff your post (and perhaps you as well).
Sigh, you're an idiot. Sanders said exactly what you said no one said. He wants full control of Healthcare, unlike Europe or Canada. You're nothing but a pathetic fool, obsessed with me. Your comments are those of a 12 year old. Sanders wants full government control of Healthcare. F off, loser.
 
  • Like
Reactions: richie83

Hotshoe

Well-Known Member
Feb 15, 2012
28,483
45,873
1
Sigh ... I read the article you linked. Here's a quote from that article which specifically describes Sanders' energy proposal:

[Sanders proposes] "creating a sort of 'public option' that would compete with the coal, natural gas and nuclear plants owned by privately owned power generators."

So creating a "public option that would compete with privately owned power generators" constitutes a government "takeover of the energy industry?" Doesn't the term "compete with privately owned power generators" clue you in to the notion that such privately owned power generators would continue to exist and operate? LOL, dude.

But at least you have a dim bulb like Richie83 to fluff your post (and perhaps you as well).
Furthermore, the only pathetic fool on here that constantly talks about and demeans gays, is you. I have never once, was disrespectful towards any sex. You, you're a pathetic pos that demeans gays every chance you get. I HAVE NEVER NOT SUPPORTED GAY MARRIAGE. Get lost. You're nothing but a pathetic fool.
 

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
20,325
26,021
1
2020evidence.org
1. Sorry, you don't get to invoke "fraudulent oaths" every time someone doesn't vote the way you want them to.
One thing worth noting, this case is all about whether or not 300+ members of Congress, etc. violated their oath of office and therefore are unfit for any current or future public office. Was there a precedent in 1877 to do a 10 day audit when there's a contested election? Yes. Should Congress have followed that precedent to calm the country down and follow their oath? Yes.


"...
"And those allegations are not believed just by one individual candidate. Instead, they are widespread. Reuters/Ipsos polling, tragically, shows that 39% of Americans believe ‘the election was rigged.' That belief is held by Republicans (67%), Democrats (17%), and Independents (31%).

"Some Members of Congress disagree with that assessment, as do many members of the media.

"But, whether or not our elected officials or journalists believe it, that deep distrust of our democratic processes will not magically disappear. It should concern us all. And it poses an ongoing threat to the legitimacy of any subsequent administrations.

"Ideally, the courts would have heard evidence and resolved these claims of serious election fraud. Twice, the Supreme Court had the opportunity to do so; twice, the Court declined.

"On January 6, it is incumbent on Congress to vote on whether to certify the 2020 election results. That vote is the lone constitutional power remaining to consider and force resolution of the multiple allegations of serious voter fraud.

"At that quadrennial joint session, there is long precedent of Democratic Members of Congress raising objections to presidential election results, as they did in 1969, 2001, 2005, and 2017. And, in both 1969 and 2005, a Democratic Senator joined with a Democratic House Member in forcing votes in both houses on whether to accept the presidential electors being challenged.

"The most direct precedent on this question arose in 1877, following serious allegations of fraud and illegal conduct in the Hayes-Tilden presidential race. Specifically, the elections in three states-Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina-were alleged to have been conducted illegally.

"In 1877, Congress did not ignore those allegations, nor did the media simply dismiss those raising them as radicals trying to undermine democracy. Instead, Congress appointed an Electoral Commission-consisting of five Senators, five House Members, and five Supreme Court Justices-to consider and resolve the disputed returns.

"We should follow that precedent...."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1Hammers1

Aardvark86

Well-Known Member
Jan 23, 2018
8,593
9,005
1
One thing worth noting, this case is all about whether or not 300+ members of Congress, etc. violated their oath of office and therefore are unfit for any current or future public office. Was there a precedent in 1877 to do a 10 day audit when there's a contested election? Yes. Should Congress have followed that precedent to calm the country down and follow their oath? Yes.


"...
"And those allegations are not believed just by one individual candidate. Instead, they are widespread. Reuters/Ipsos polling, tragically, shows that 39% of Americans believe ‘the election was rigged.' That belief is held by Republicans (67%), Democrats (17%), and Independents (31%).

"Some Members of Congress disagree with that assessment, as do many members of the media.

"But, whether or not our elected officials or journalists believe it, that deep distrust of our democratic processes will not magically disappear. It should concern us all. And it poses an ongoing threat to the legitimacy of any subsequent administrations.

"Ideally, the courts would have heard evidence and resolved these claims of serious election fraud. Twice, the Supreme Court had the opportunity to do so; twice, the Court declined.

"On January 6, it is incumbent on Congress to vote on whether to certify the 2020 election results. That vote is the lone constitutional power remaining to consider and force resolution of the multiple allegations of serious voter fraud.

"At that quadrennial joint session, there is long precedent of Democratic Members of Congress raising objections to presidential election results, as they did in 1969, 2001, 2005, and 2017. And, in both 1969 and 2005, a Democratic Senator joined with a Democratic House Member in forcing votes in both houses on whether to accept the presidential electors being challenged.

"The most direct precedent on this question arose in 1877, following serious allegations of fraud and illegal conduct in the Hayes-Tilden presidential race. Specifically, the elections in three states-Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina-were alleged to have been conducted illegally.

"In 1877, Congress did not ignore those allegations, nor did the media simply dismiss those raising them as radicals trying to undermine democracy. Instead, Congress appointed an Electoral Commission-consisting of five Senators, five House Members, and five Supreme Court Justices-to consider and resolve the disputed returns.

"We should follow that precedent...."
Dude. I’m trying to help you live an easier life here. You need to find a different great white hope.
 

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
20,325
26,021
1
2020evidence.org
This could be huge. Is this a card the court could play in case the lame duck congress attempts to curtail/dilute it?

Note on 11/23/22 the US govt (Solicitor General) waived its right to respond:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-380.html

I think this is the original petition that was filed:

This case doesn’t have anything to do with the rightful winner of 2020 and everything to do with hundreds of members of congress failing to make sure the vote was legit before certifying it therefore putting our national security at risk.

As a reminder in Dec 2020 ODNI said there’s was signs of foreign interference. Also multiple state legislators sent letters to their US reps asking them to delay certification for a week or two so they could get their arms around what just happened. But nope. The certification was rammed through at like 2:30 am after a convenient fed boi provacateur led “riot” shut down all debate re: 2020 election shenanigans. How convenient.

The Question: How can you support, and defend, the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic?

Answer: You investigate. If there are claims that there is a threat, even if you don't believe there is a threat, you investigate. How else can you determine if there is a threat unless you investigate? You can't. Were there claims of a threat to the Constitution? Yes. Where did these serious claims come from? 100 members of Congress. What was the threat? That there were enemies of the Constitution who successfully rigged the 2020 election. Is this lawsuit 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
UPDATE:

Nov 30 2022DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/6/2023.

We'll find out on 1/6/23 if they will take the case or not. Buckle up! If they take it is the recent Roe vs. Wade ruling a preview of what they will decide? Sometimes big doors turn on tiny hinges.
 

LafayetteBear

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2009
48,967
21,892
1
Cert denied
Wait, wut?! Dr. Conspiracy Guy told us that this case was "on the verge of being heard." I guess he meant on the verge of being heard by Trump Cultists, not the Supreme Court. Cert. DENIED.

When, oh when is the PAIN coming? When will Hillary finally be arrested? When, oh when will the Big Reveal occur? When will Cheeto be restored to his "rightful" position as POTUS? Will he be No. 45 or No. 47 at that point? All burning questions which we need to have answered. Where is Q when you need him? 🙋‍♂️ 🙋‍♂️
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: NJPSU

Aardvark86

Well-Known Member
Jan 23, 2018
8,593
9,005
1
Predictive. I’m just trying to ease your future disappointment here.

But if you insist on continuing to post administrative docket management orders as if they are newsworthy I’ll continue to try to help
 

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
20,325
26,021
1
2020evidence.org
Predictive. I’m just trying to ease your future disappointment here.

But if you insist on continuing to post administrative docket management orders as if they are newsworthy I’ll continue to try to help
I think the date of when we’ll find out the fate of this case is quite newsworthy. Again the fact its even on the dockett for consideration is quite amazing. Of all the thousands and thousands of cases submitted this one gets attention/looked at.

Also with the recent release of the Twitter files I’d note The core argument in the case is election issues abounded and a Constitutional right appealing for time to investigate these issues was fundamentally denied. Unlike other cases, only 4 SC judges have to agree to this premise in conference for the case to be heard/certified.

Suddenly it's much harder for those SC judges to disagree with Raland's premise, when the CEO of a major American tech company is releasing materials implicating government officials. I said I wasn’t holding my breath but it just got way more interesting.

There’s also this:
 
Last edited:

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
20,325
26,021
1
2020evidence.org
This could be huge. Is this a card the court could play in case the lame duck congress attempts to curtail/dilute it?

Note on 11/23/22 the US govt (Solicitor General) waived its right to respond:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-380.html

I think this is the original petition that was filed:

This case doesn’t have anything to do with the rightful winner of 2020 and everything to do with hundreds of members of congress failing to make sure the vote was legit before certifying it therefore putting our national security at risk.

As a reminder in Dec 2020 ODNI said there’s was signs of foreign interference. Also multiple state legislators sent letters to their US reps asking them to delay certification for a week or two so they could get their arms around what just happened. But nope. The certification was rammed through at like 2:30 am after a convenient fed boi provacateur led “riot” shut down all debate re: 2020 election shenanigans. How convenient.

The Question: How can you support, and defend, the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic?

Answer: You investigate. If there are claims that there is a threat, even if you don't believe there is a threat, you investigate. How else can you determine if there is a threat unless you investigate? You can't. Were there claims of a threat to the Constitution? Yes. Where did these serious claims come from? 100 members of Congress. What was the threat? That there were enemies of the Constitution who successfully rigged the 2020 election. Is this lawsuit 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
While we wait until early Jan here are some things to ponder.

Biden “won” a record low number of bellwether counties and there was an unprecedented stoppage in counting nearly simultaneously in 6 swing states. All kinds of safeguards were ignored due to muh covid (mass unsolicited mail in ballots, etc.). Tons of whistleblowers and lawsuits. IOW Red flags galore.

In Jan 2021 about 1/3 of US Sen and Reps wanted to do a 10 day audit before certifying the 2020 vote. We also had DNI Ratcliffe saying in Dec ‘20 there was foreign election interference from china. Dozens of state legislators and AG’s asked for a pause on the certification as well.

Despite all of this 2/3 of US reps couldn’t be bothered with making sure to verify before certifying. When they did this they violated their oaths of office. Let’s hope the court decides to hear this case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fayette_LION

mijowe

Well-Known Member
Aug 6, 2021
671
252
1
The Brunson Bros make a pretty strong case for an investigation into russian collusion....

"How can you support, and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign, and domestic? Answer: You investigate. If there are claims that there is a threat, even if you don't believe there is a threat, you investigate. How else can you determine if there is a threat unless you investigate? You can't. "

 

AnonymousSource

Well-Known Member
Oct 17, 2017
1,548
532
1
Biden “won” a record low number of bellwether counties

In fairness, he won counties accounting for 70% of the country’s GDP.


But I guess that doesn’t include the woke voting machines from Venezuela, or whatever fraud you totally found.
 

LafayetteBear

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2009
48,967
21,892
1
While we wait until early Jan here are some things to ponder.

Biden “won” a record low number of bellwether counties
Enough with the "bellwether counties" tripe. Cheeto Hitler was on the ballot. That alone explains a significant shift in voting patterns.
 
Last edited:

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
20,325
26,021
1
2020evidence.org
The Brunson Bros make a pretty strong case for an investigation into russian collusion....

"How can you support, and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign, and domestic? Answer: You investigate. If there are claims that there is a threat, even if you don't believe there is a threat, you investigate. How else can you determine if there is a threat unless you investigate? You can't. "

Sure they should have investigated the Russian collusion claims and it should have lasted about 1 hr. Oh the dossiers main source said it’s all heasay bar talk and it was funded by the Clinton camp? Ok case closed. It’s a bs political hit job. Instead mueller dragged on for like 2 yrs.
 

jferretti

Well-Known Member
Jun 11, 2001
4,096
1,589
1
While we wait until early Jan here are some things to ponder.

Biden “won” a record low number of bellwether counties and there was an unprecedented stoppage in counting nearly simultaneously in 6 swing states. All kinds of safeguards were ignored due to muh covid (mass unsolicited mail in ballots, etc.). Tons of whistleblowers and lawsuits. IOW Red flags galore.

In Jan 2021 about 1/3 of US Sen and Reps wanted to do a 10 day audit before certifying the 2020 vote. We also had DNI Ratcliffe saying in Dec ‘20 there was foreign election interference from china. Dozens of state legislators and AG’s asked for a pause on the certification as well.

Despite all of this 2/3 of US reps couldn’t be bothered with making sure to verify before certifying. When they did this they violated their oaths of office. Let’s hope the court decides to hear this case.
Hello? The most litigated and scrutinized election in history has turned up nothing. Your case is going nowhere. The Plaintiff does not even want to be in Federal Court and fails to realize that when you sue federal officials you end up with federal jurisdiction. Whoever is ghost writing this piece of garbage is either naive or lacks candor with the Court. In addition to not understanding federal law, he has nothing to support his allegations except for conclusory statements in his Complaint. Like so many other legal challenges before this, the case is hollow and will collapse of its own weight.

For those who want a good laugh, look at the reporting of this case on the fringe of the web. It's comical until you consider the wasted bandwidth.
 

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
20,325
26,021
1
2020evidence.org
UPDATE:

Nov 30 2022DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/6/2023.

We'll find out on 1/6/23 if they will take the case or not. Buckle up! If they take it is the recent Roe vs. Wade ruling a preview of what they will decide? Sometimes big doors turn on tiny hinges.
I bet it’s no coincidence they are scheduled to have a conference about this case on 1/6 of all dates.
 

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
20,325
26,021
1
2020evidence.org
I am assuming that since the Ray Epps theory just died you hang onto this thread. Good luck with that.
Lulz. It’s no theory. The guy was caught on camera imploring people to go INTO the capitol and also whispering sweet musings into peoples ears after which they stormed barricades, etc.. I guess it was just a big misunderstanding why he was initially on the FBI’s list before being scrubbed.
 

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
20,325
26,021
1
2020evidence.org
UPDATE:

Nov 30 2022DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/6/2023.

We'll find out on 1/6/23 if they will take the case or not. Buckle up! If they take it is the recent Roe vs. Wade ruling a preview of what they will decide? Sometimes big doors turn on tiny hinges.
Bump for today’s conference!
 

Aardvark86

Well-Known Member
Jan 23, 2018
8,593
9,005
1
Well see. I’ll bet you never thought roe v wade would get overturned yet here we are ;)
Actually, what I thought about Roe was that it would be gutted, but not overturned, in the last go-round. Then again, Roe and its progeny actually had a fairly comprehensive library of scholarship relating to its underlying rationale, in contrast to this current silly matter.
 

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
20,325
26,021
1
2020evidence.org
Actually, what I thought about Roe was that it would be gutted, but not overturned, in the last go-round. Then again, Roe and its progeny actually had a fairly comprehensive library of scholarship relating to its underlying rationale, in contrast to this current silly matter.
Hundreds of reps violating their oaths thus causing a national security crisis isn’t a silly matter.

They spent yrs and millions to look into obviously false allegations of Trump Russia collusion but couldn’t spend one second to look into an election riddled with anomalies. How nice!!
 

Aardvark86

Well-Known Member
Jan 23, 2018
8,593
9,005
1
Hundreds of reps violating their oaths thus causing a national security crisis isn’t a silly matter.

They spent yrs and millions to look into obviously false allegations of Trump Russia collusion but couldn’t spend one second to look into an election riddled with anomalies. How nice!!
it is a silly matter.