I started this website in 2015 with one simple goal, which remains our Mission to this day: To print the Truth the MSM won’t tell you! That Mission remains even more relevant today than when we started, and I’ll prove it to you. This coming Saturday is going to be absolutely massive. It’s June 14th, 2025. What’s so special about June 14th? One, it’s President Trump’s birthday. Two, it’s Flag Day.  (Did you know that?  How perfectly poetic!) Three, the MSM is not giving this much attention at all yet, but President Trump is hosting a MASSIVE grand military parade in Washington, D.C., the likes of which this Nation has likely never seen before. More details on that here: REPORT: Everything You Need To Know About President Trump’s MASSIVE June 14th Military Parade But what I really want to talk about is what almost no one is talking about....and that is what the Deep State is planning for that very same day. Folks, I am getting "J6" vibes all over again on this one, but only on a national scale and much larger. While President Trump is planning something patriotic and historic, the Deep State is looking to co-opt and ruin it with their counter-programming. They're calling it "No Kings Day" and you can see it right here: If you don’t think that June 14th is a culmination of everything Check out https://t.co/YtVmu7qp0H That is where they are organizing the protests from. It even shows you all the NGOs that are funded by our own govt!!! Below is a pic of all the planned protest slated to… pic.twitter.com/JAE3MYGaxg — ⚖The Justice Cometh⚖ (@jgt58maga) June 9, 2025 If you don’t think that June 14th is a culmination of everything Check out http://nokings.org That is where they are organizing the protests from. It even shows you all the NGOs that are funded by our own govt!!! Below is a pic of all the planned protest slated to occur the 14th.. The Insurrection act must be signed. We must take back our country Now do you see why the border was bigger than you could imagine? Are you seeing it yet? Here it is, directly from their website: You know what I see in each one of those circles? Sleeper cells. Chaos. Anarchy. BLM. "Summer of Love" 2.0. Pallets of bricks. I think what you saw in LA this past weekend and still happening right now is the test run.  They're just getting everything warmed up and turned on. I believe they want to activate mini-LA riots all across the country next Saturday during Trump's Patriotic Parade and each one of those dots is a sleeper cell in waiting. That's what I see. Here's what their website says: Of course their website says it will be 100% "non-violent".... You know, just like those "Mostly Peaceful Protests" in LA, right? When I hear that, I am reminded of what the Bible says.... The Bible says when they say "Peace, Peace!" that's when the war drums are coming. "For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape."— 1 Thessalonians 5:3 (KJV) Rising up all across the country? The left is planning to "rise up" all across the country on June 14th. They call it "a nationwide day of defiance." Randi Weingarten is behind it. pic.twitter.com/qHKAYItnHj — Corey A. DeAngelis, school choice evangelist (@DeAngelisCorey) June 9, 2025 Sounds like an Insurrection to me! On Saturday June 14th, the left is planning mass protests all across the US. The "No Kings' org is the organizer.It would be nice to find out who funds them, and have their funds frozen. I will put the link in the 1st comment, so you can see where in your area to avoid. You… pic.twitter.com/4DYQRYou08 — NWRain-Judi (@RYboating) June 9, 2025 “CALL THE BALL” — The Insurrection Act of 1807 "CALL THE BALL" -- The Insurrection Act of 1807 I saw this post from my good friend Pepe Deluxe and I thought it was so spot on that I wanted to share it with you. We're on a crash collision course with a Constitutional Crisis at the rate we're going with these rogue District Court judges. Our Founding Fathers built a brilliant system of checks and balances, but within that system the Executive Branch and it's leader, the President, were given broad authority to conduct certain matters like National Security, Immigration, Borders and International Trade. They never intended a system where all of the Executive powers could be overridden by any district court judge who disagreed with them. That's not just my opinion, Steve Bannon recently said we're on pace to have a Constitutional Crisis by Summer: STEVE BANNON: We Will Have a Constitutional Crisis By Summer And that's where this post from Pepe Deluxe comes in. He reminds everyone of the Insurrection Act of 1807 and implies that it might be necessary to invoke it to save this country: Call the ball pic.twitter.com/D3cYZi7AzY — Pepe Deluxe ? (@deluxe_pepe) May 30, 2025 Here's a quick history of how and when it's been used: Summary of the Insurrection Act of 1807 The Insurrection Act of 1807 is a United States federal law (10 U.S. Code §§ 251–255) that empowers the President to deploy military forces within the United States to suppress civil disorder, insurrection, or rebellion. It serves as an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally prohibits the use of federal troops for domestic law enforcement. Key Provisions § 251 – State Request: The President may deploy troops when requested by a state governor or legislature to suppress insurrection. § 252 – Unlawful Obstruction: The President may act without a request from a state if there is unlawful obstruction of law or opposition to federal authority. § 253 – Civil Rights Enforcement: The President may use force to protect constitutional rights when they are being systematically denied and state authorities fail or refuse to act. § 254 – Proclamation Requirement: Before acting, the President must issue a public proclamation ordering insurgents to disperse. Historical Usage It has been invoked sparingly: 1957: Eisenhower sent troops to enforce desegregation in Little Rock, Arkansas. 1962–63: Kennedy used it to enforce civil rights in Mississippi and Alabama. 1992: George H.W. Bush used it during the Los Angeles riots after the Rodney King verdict. 2006 Amendment (repealed in 2008): Expanded the law but was rolled back after bipartisan pushback. This actually isn't the first time we've covered it here at WLT Report. Three months ago I brought you this -- and perhaps soon the timing is right: REPORTS: President Trump Is Planning To Invoke The Insurrection Act! REPORTS: President Trump Is Planning To Invoke The Insurrection Act! Ok, buckle up folks because I've got a LOT to unpack here.... A lot of rumors are flying about what President Trump will or won't do soon, and most of it centers around rumors that he will soon invoke these 18th century Presidential Powers like the "Wartime Alien Enemies Act of 1978" or the "Insurrection Act of 1807". We covered the first one earlier today: President Trump Will Invoke Wartime Alien Enemies Act Of 1798 Now I want to dig into the other one, because they are, in fact, two totally different things, but rumors are flying about both and I'm seeing a lot of people conflating the two. Here's a quick summary: Alien Enemies Act of 1798 Enacted: Part of the Alien and Sedition Acts, signed into law on July 6, 1798, by President John Adams. Purpose: Allows the President to apprehend, restrain, and deport "alien enemies" (non-citizens from a country the U.S. is at war with) during a declared war. Key Features: It applies only in wartime, targeting foreign nationals deemed a threat to national security. It does not involve military deployment domestically against U.S. citizens. Current Status: Still technically in effect (codified in 50 U.S.C. § 21-24), though rarely used. It was notably invoked during World War I and World War II (e.g., internment of Japanese, German, and Italian nationals). Insurrection Act Enacted: Originally passed in 1807, with significant amendments over time (e.g., 1871 during Reconstruction). Purpose: Authorizes the President to deploy federal military forces or federalize state militias within the U.S. to suppress insurrections, rebellions, or domestic violence when local authorities cannot maintain order. Key Features: Focuses on domestic unrest, not foreign nationals. It can be used in peacetime or wartime and involves military action against U.S. citizens or residents if necessary. Current Status: Codified in 10 U.S.C. §§ 251-255, it remains in effect and has been invoked in cases like the 1992 Los Angeles riots. Key Differences Scope: The Alien Enemies Act targets foreign nationals during wartime; the Insurrection Act addresses domestic unrest, regardless of citizenship. Military Use: The Insurrection Act explicitly involves military intervention, while the Alien Enemies Act focuses on detention and deportation without necessarily requiring military force. Trigger: The Alien Enemies Act requires a declared war; the Insurrection Act can be triggered by civil disorder or rebellion, even absent a formal war. Rumors have swirled since the "Summer of Love" in 2020 that President Trump would invoke the Insurrection Act: What Is the Insurrection Act? Trump Threatened to Use it to Deploy the Military... Along with the Patriot act any misdemeanor such as protesting past curfew can land people in legal semantics ‘Terrorist List’. Vote if you want to make a change. https://t.co/SneC0AgFcs — Michelle Rodriguez (@MRodOfficial) June 3, 2020 And quite frankly?  I think he should have during all the BLM and ANTIFA chaos. That's exactly what it was made for. But President Trump exercised extreme restraint and did not use it. That's our first clue as to whether or not President Trump might use it now in 2025....if he didn't use it when BLM and ANTIFA were burning down major US Cities, is it likely he will use it now?  It could surely happen, but let's just say I'm not fully convinced. But Liberals are melting down: Here’s a crazed liberal claiming Trump will invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807 to deploy military force against American citizens. This will apparently happen on April 20th. pic.twitter.com/RnF8xX8QmU — Natalie Jean Beisner (@NJBeisner) March 11, 2025 So why is this coming up now? Because of an Executive Order signed by President Trump on his first day in office back on January 20th titled: "DECLARING A NATIONAL EMERGENCY AT THE SOUTHERN BORDER OF THE UNITED STATES". In that Executive Order was this paragraph: (b) Within 90 days of the date of this proclamation, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit a joint report to the President about the conditions at the southern border of the United States and any recommendations regarding additional actions that may be necessary to obtain complete operational control of the southern border, including whether to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807. So to be fair, the Democrats aren't freaking out for no reason....it turns out they actually read the Executive Order -- or at least one person did and then it started going viral. And that 90 day period is up on April 20th, but that's just the deadline -- it could happen earlier.  In fact, the report could already be on President Trump's desk, we don't know for sure. Fox News had more analysis: On his first day back in office, the president signed a litany of executive orders, including one declaring a state of emergency at the southern border. According to the order, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security have 90 days to submit a report about the conditions at the border and any recommended actions that need to be taken to secure, "including whether to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807." Here’s what the act is, and what it could mean if invoked: What is the Insurrection Act of 1807? Dig deeper: The Insurrection Act allows presidents to call on reserve or active-duty military units to respond to unrest in the states, an authority that is not reviewable by the courts. One of its few guardrails requires the president to request that the participants disperse. Congress passed the act in 1792, just four years after the Constitution was ratified. Joseph Nunn, a national security expert with the Brennan Center for Justice, told The Associated Press it’s an amalgamation of different statutes enacted between then and the 1870s, a time when there was little in the way of local law enforcement. "It is a law that in many ways was created for a country that doesn’t exist anymore," he added. It also is one of the most substantial exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally prohibits using the military for law enforcement purposes. VP Vance Delivers Remarks at U.S.-Mexico Border Vice President JD Vance toured the U.S.-Mexico border Wednesday, meeting with law enforcement to highlight immigration policies that the White House says have led to fewer arrests since Trump’s second term. Accompanied by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and DNI Director Tulsi Gabbard, Vance is among the highest-ranking Republicans to visit the border. After a helicopter tour of Eagle Pass, they visited a Border Patrol facility and joined a roundtable discussion. Past use of the Insurrection Act The backstory: Presidents have issued a total of 40 proclamations invoking the law, some of those done multiple times for the same crisis, Nunn said. Lyndon Johnson invoked it three times — in Baltimore, Chicago and Washington — in response to the unrest in cities after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968. During the Civil Rights era, Presidents Johnson, John F. Kennedy and Dwight Eisenhower used the law to protect activists and students desegregating schools. Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock, Arkansas, to protect Black students integrating Central High School after that state’s governor activated the National Guard to keep the students out. George H.W. Bush was the last president to use the Insurrection Act, a response to riots in Los Angeles in 1992 after the acquittal of the white police officers who beat Black motorist Rodney King in an incident that was videotaped. Could Trump invoke the Insurrection Act? Almost anything and everything is on the table during a Trump presidency. Big picture view: He’s already fired top Pentagon officials and military lawyers, leading some critics to say the firings are an ominous sign, given that Trump has long made clear his desire to involve the military in his domestic policy goals, including his crackdown on immigration. In Congress, which has the power to restrict the use of military force through funding and other authorizations, Republicans are largely on board with Trump’s plans. The other side: Democrats in Congress tried to update presidential powers like the Insurrection Act before Trump’s second term but found little success. That left them instead issuing dire warnings that Trump now has fewer guardrails on how he could use the military. He has shown an ability to bend institutions to his goals, from a Supreme Court willing to reconsider long-standing interpretations of presidential powers to a military scrubbed of officers and leaders likely to push back on his plans. Newsweek had more on what we're hearing from key figures: What People Are Saying Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, in a recent statement: "The drop in illegal border crossings has been fantastic: 95% since President Trump took office. We'll keep our military at the border until it is entirely closed." Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, on X, formerly Twitter, on Monday: "In February, there were just 8,326 apprehensions at the U.S. Mexico border. That is lowest number in recorded history. President @realDonaldTrump has delivered a powerful message and the world is taking notice: America's borders are CLOSED to lawbreakers." President Donald Trump, in a March 4 address to Congress: "The territory to the immediate south of our border is now dominated entirely by criminal cartels that murder, rape, torture and exercise total control. They have total control over a whole nation. posing a grave threat to our national security." Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a historian and political commentator, on X on Friday: "Americans, Trump is apparently now considering the invocation of the Insurrection Act. He has asked Hegseth & Noem to weigh in on the issue. Autocrats use such measures to speed power consolidation, repress protests and demonstrate force to the world." White House spokesperson Kush Desai told Politico in February: "After four years of a lackadaisical approach to border security and immigration, every lever of executive power is now being marshaled to enforce our laws, mass deport criminal illegal immigrants, safeguard our borders, and put American citizens first." Brett Wagner, a retired professor of national security decision making for the U.S. Naval War College, in an opinion piece in the San Francisco Chronicle on Wednesday: "Many of us are now holding our collective breath, knowing that the report and what it contains could put us on the slippery slope toward unchecked presidential power under a man with an affinity for ironfisted dictators." Here's a deeper analysis on how likely this is to happen: What It Would Take for Trump to Invoke the Insurrection Act The Insurrection Act (codified in 10 U.S.C. §§ 251–255) grants the president broad authority to deploy federal troops under certain circumstances. Below is an organized overview of the conditions, practical scenarios, administrative steps, political justification, and the likelihood analysis regarding its potential invocation by Trump. Legal Triggering Conditions For the Act to be invoked, the president must determine that an “insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy” exists. This determination typically falls into one of two categories: State-Requested Intervention (§ 251):When a state is unable to enforce its own laws and formally requests federal assistance from its legislature or governor. Federal Law Enforcement Impediment (§ 252–253):When domestic disturbances hinder the execution of federal laws or infringe on constitutional rights to the extent that ordinary judicial processes become impracticable. Additional Note:No formal congressional approval is required; however, the president must issue a proclamation ordering insurgents to disperse before deploying troops (§ 254). Practical Scenarios Several potential scenarios might provide a pretext for invoking the Act: Border Security Crisis: Trump’s administration has underscored a southern border emergency. An executive order mandates a report from the Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security within 90 days (due around April 20, 2025). Should the report cite overwhelming illegal migration or violence (e.g., cartel-related unrest) as an "unlawful obstruction" to federal immigration law, it could justify invoking the Act. Widespread Protests or Riots: Significant civil unrest, such as mass protests against Trump’s policies (immigration crackdowns, tariffs, or D.E.I. rollbacks), could be portrayed as an insurrection if it disrupts federal operations or state governance. State Resistance: If a state—such as sanctuary cities resisting federal immigration enforcement—refuses to comply with federal directives, it might be argued that this obstruction necessitates military intervention. Administrative Steps The decision-making process would likely involve several key actions: Consultation: Trump would consult with key advisors (e.g., Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, National Security Adviser Mike Waltz) and review the outcomes of the border report. Proclamation and Deployment: A public proclamation ordering insurgents to disperse would be issued. This would be followed by the deployment of active-duty military or federalized National Guard units. Political Justification To justify such a drastic measure, Trump would need to frame it as a necessary response to a crisis: Rhetorical Framing: Emphasizing "law and order" and national security, as seen in his March 4, 2025, congressional address. Selling to the Base and Public: The move would be presented as decisive leadership during a time of crisis, aligning with his history of strong executive actions. Historical Precedents 1992 Los Angeles Riots: The Act was invoked during the riots under President George H.W. Bush. Enforcement of Desegregation (1957): President Eisenhower also relied on the Act to enforce desegregation. While the threshold is not exceedingly high, historical uses of the Act have been tied to acute, visible disorder. Likelihood Analysis Supporting Factors Border Focus: Early executive orders and the upcoming border report might provide a tailored justification if they highlight significant disorder linked to migration. Historical Precedent and Advisory Support: Trump’s consideration of the Act during the 2020 George Floyd protests, coupled with recent Pentagon purges and consultations with hawkish advisors, indicates a readiness to flex executive power. Political Climate: With a Republican-controlled Congress and strong base support, there is less immediate legislative pushback against a decisive, albeit controversial, action. Countervailing Factors Lack of an Acute Crisis: As of March 12, 2025, there are no widespread insurrections or riots on the scale of previous events (e.g., the 1992 LA riots). Judicial Oversight: The potential for federal courts to intervene if the use of the Act appears disproportionate or politically motivated. Congressional and Public Reaction: While some Republicans may support such a move, moderates and Democrats could mobilize against perceived overreach, particularly if public opinion (as per recent polls) favors addressing economic issues over security theater. Military Reluctance: There may be internal military resistance to deploying troops domestically, especially given sensitivities following January 6, 2021. Probability Assessment Short-Term (Next 3 Months): Moderate Likelihood (40–50% chance):The outcome of the border report is pivotal. Should it provide a clear justification tied to specific incidents, action might be taken by May 2025. In the absence of a clear crisis, however, Trump is likely to refrain. Longer-Term (Within the First Year): Higher Likelihood (60–70% chance):If his policies continue to provoke protests or state defiance, Trump may find sufficient pretext to invoke the Act as part of a broader strategy to expand executive power. Critical Perspective and Conclusion The narrative in mainstream media (e.g., NYT, WaPo) suggests that Trump’s flirtation with the Insurrection Act borders on authoritarian overreach. While his supporters may view it as decisive leadership, the truth seems to be opportunistic rather than premeditated. The upcoming border report is critical; a mild report may keep this hypothetical, whereas an alarmist one could significantly increase the odds. In summary:For Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act, a plausible crisis—whether at the border or in the form of civil unrest—must emerge, providing both legal and political justification. Presently, the necessary groundwork (executive orders, loyal advisors, and a supportive base) is in place, but no definitive crisis has materialized. The likelihood is moderate in the near term, with potential to rise if conditions change. I actually first warned you about this nearly a year ago... We were one of the first outlets to even cover this idea. See here from early 2024: Biden Panicked That Trump Will Invoke The Insurrection Act” — Here’s What That Actually Means Biden Panicked That Trump Will Invoke The Insurrection Act" -- Here's What That Actually Means We've heard a lot about "Insurrection" over the last 3 years... Way more than I ever care to hear for the rest of my life. A made up and fake "scandal" designed to divert your attention from the truth. Basically, this meme: But while we've heard copious amounts of talk about "acts of insurrection" we haven't heard much about the "Insurrection Act". Two very different things. I'm going to explain the "Insurrection Act" to you in just a moment, but first let me show you this very angry, panicked video from a recent Biden speech. If you ask me, they know what's coming and they are terrified: Biden says that “Trump plans to invoke the Insurrection Act which will allow him to deploy US military forces on the streets of America.” This panic-ridden speech is absolutely hilarious. It’s so cartoonish that they are either scared to death of what’s to come or they are… pic.twitter.com/0JrxtkjIo7 — Noah Christopher (@DailyNoahNews) January 5, 2024 Biden says that “Trump plans to invoke the Insurrection Act which will allow him to deploy US military forces on the streets of America.” This panic-ridden speech is absolutely hilarious. It’s so cartoonish that they are either scared to death of what’s to come or they are purposely sabotaging themselves. Cartoonish is absolutely right. Just look at how his face contorts with anger and evil, that's some wild stuff! But back to the topic at hand, why is Joe Biden so panicked about President Trump using the Insurrection Act? Let me explain.... Trump May Deploy "Ironic" 1795 Law To Clean Up America Occam's Razor says that the simplest answer is usually correct. Elon Musk often jokes that the most "ironic" outcome is usually the most likely to occur. And he might just be right on this one. What is the one word the Crooked Media and Crooked Congress has tried to sink President Trump with since January 2021? "Insurrection" In that context, people afraid that President Trump will win again (big league) in 2024, have tried to use the "Insurrection Clause" of the 14th Amendment to bar him from the ballot: Prohibition Against Holding Office: Section 3 of the 14th Amendment states that no person shall hold any office, civil or military, under the United States or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. Of course we know that's completely bogus, but did you know there is actually a different law on the books from 1795 called The Insurrection Act? Totally different thing, and the irony above all ironies is that President Trump may deploy it on Day 1 of his Presidency to clean up America: The Insurrection Act of 1795 is a United States federal law that empowers the President to deploy U.S. military and federalized National Guard troops within the United States in specific circumstances, such as to suppress civil disorder, insurrection, and rebellion. The key aspects of this act include: Authorization for Use: The Act allows the President to use the armed forces to address an insurrection in any state which requests it, or in situations where it's necessary to enforce federal law. Conditions for Deployment: Before deploying troops, the President must first issue a proclamation ordering the insurgents to disperse within a limited time. If the situation does not resolve after this proclamation, the President can then use military force. Historical Context: Enacted in 1795, the law was a response to the Whiskey Rebellion, a 1794 uprising against federal tax collections in western Pennsylvania. Subsequent Amendments: The Act has been amended several times, most notably by the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which limits the use of military personnel under federal command for law enforcement purposes within the United States. Modern Usage: The Insurrection Act has been invoked on several occasions throughout history, including during the Los Angeles riots in 1992 and in response to Hurricane Hugo in 1989. America has become a third world country. Our major cities are not even safe to walk in any more. Have you seen this from Chicago? Chicago has fallen. Third worldShithole! pic.twitter.com/Z2WoZybUVa — Noah Christopher (@DailyNoahNews) September 17, 2023 Or this filth from New York? Breaking News: Democrats Piss Themselves on Trains Now... https://t.co/oBdPGn6RF7 — Rob/1865 (@Rob1865_) November 28, 2023 Or this TERRIFYING attack on a woman in Chicago? THIS IS THIRD WORLD COUNTRY SHIT! Lock these thugs up or just execute them if needed....YES or NO? https://t.co/tAUZsRlQsA — Noah Christopher (@DailyNoahNews) November 28, 2023 Time to clean it up, and President Trump is just the man to do it. Here is The Associated Press: “You look at these great cities Los Angeles, San Francisco you look at what’s happening to our country… We cannot let it happen any longer. And one of the other things I’ll do.. Because you know you’re supposed to not be involved in that you just have to be asked by the governor or the mayor to come in… The next time, I’m not waiting. One of the things I did was let them run it, and we’re going to show how bad a job they do,” he added. You can see the clip in this speech at the 1:50:00 mark -- the play button should cue it up right to that spot: Here's more from the Associated Press on how it may play out: The Insurrection Act allows presidents to call on reserve or active-duty military units to respond to unrest in the states, an authority that is not reviewable by the courts. One of its few guardrails merely requires the president to request that the participants disperse. “The principal constraint on the president’s use of the Insurrection Act is basically political, that presidents don’t want to be the guy who sent tanks rolling down Main Street,” said Joseph Nunn, a national security expert with the Brennan Center for Justice. “There’s not much really in the law to stay the president’s hand.” A spokesman for Trump’s campaign did not respond to multiple requests for comment about what authority Trump might use to pursue his plans. Congress passed the act in 1792, just four years after the Constitution was ratified. Nunn said it's an amalgamation of different statutes enacted between then and the 1870s, a time when there was little in the way of local law enforcement. “It is a law that in many ways was created for a country that doesn’t exist anymore,” he said. It also is one of the most substantial exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally prohibits using the military for law enforcement purposes. Trump has spoken openly about his plans should he win the presidency, including using the military at the border and in cities struggling with violent crime. His plans also have included using the military against foreign drug cartels, a view echoed by other Republican primary candidates such as Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley, the former U.N. ambassador and South Carolina governor. What do you think? Here's something else that's very interesting.... Apparently, AI was asked what would have happened if President Trump had used the Insurrection Act back in January of 2020 before he left office.... The answer? It would have destroyed the country. In other words, this is EXACTLY why we had to have the 3-year "Pause". President Trump Once Again Explains “The Pause” — This Time In More Detail WOW: AI Confirmed The Insurrection Act Would Have Destroyed The Country This is really interesting... Yes, this is from the Charlie Ward show, but let me explain. I've been fairly public over the years of saying I'm not a big fan of Charlie Ward and I'm a much lesser fan of Simon Parkes. But I do really like Juan O'Savin (which I'm sure is not his real name). I do believe Juan is not just a casual observer, I believe he's probably someone very connected, which I assume from the way he speaks. Just my two cents. I also really appreciate his Biblical world view. Even in this interview he tells people to not "follow a guru" but to get a direct connection to "Our Father in Heaven". And he's made many comments in the past that lead me to believe that's a Biblical, Christian view of God and not what these evil Elites think of their "gods". But anyway, back to the interview. Juan was on with Charlie Ward and Simon Parkes and while I d0n't put too much stock in what they say, I did find the interview fascinating. And most of it was Juan speaking. This is an entirely new interview, so even if you've heard some of his recent interviews there is a lot new in here. Perhaps the most interesting part to me was his discussion of The Insurrection Act and whether or not Trump signed it. Juan says absolutely not. And for the record, President Trump has also said absolutely not. Although it was considered. According to Juan, President Trump was extremely close to signing it but then decided not to after Artificial Intelligence computer modeling ran all the scenarios and determined it would send our country into a new Civil War (65% vs. 35%) -- one we likely would never have recovered from. There's a lot more in here too, including a full breakdown of the Brunson Supreme Court case and why it's likely to succeed. FRAUD VITIATES EVERYTHING. The whole interview is great (just take Charlie and Simon with a grain of salt, although they do say we're going to have a very good Christmas, so that is encouraging if true). Please enjoy this one... Watch here on Rumble: And speaking of the SCOTUS case, we could use your help! Brunson vs. Adams, Here's What Can You Do To Help! Calling all patriots! Since early November, I've been telling you about the Brunson Brothers Supreme Court case, Brunson v. Adams. I've been telling you it's special. I've been telling you it's unlike all the rest. And now I'm calling for your help... Thanks to WomenImpactingNation and PrayingMantis, I've got a great Q&A for you to answer some of the top questions... ...as well as a call to action that everyone can help with! I know the deadline says December 15, but if you take action today it may still make a big difference. So please jump in. From WIN (originally sourced from PrayingMantis), please read the following: This post is about the very important Brunson vs. Alma S. Adams, et al. case that is now before the U.S. Supreme Court.  Please read to the end! THE INFORMATION BELOW HAS BEEN REPRINTED IN PART WITH PERMISSION FROM PRAYING MANTIS at SUBSTACK.  Links to the full, original posts are at the end of this article, with instructions and links to the letter you are being asked to write and mail ASAP!  It must be mailed BEFORE DECEMBER 15!   If you attended the W.I.N. Christmas party, you heard a little intro to what’s going on.  Perhaps you have read a newsletter or an online media report about how critical this case is to our freedom. You need to know what is at stake and the “Hail Mary” action that we the people must take to save our United States of America republic. Please read this post in its entirety to get a better understanding of what the case is about and how it impacts every American. This is not about party or politics – each person has the right to their own opinions and affiliations. However, we can’t have a functioning society or country unless our voting system is trustworthy. Since 2020, many have investigated and proven electoral malfeasance. Now, after the 2022 midterms, most have realized that our electoral system is untrustworthy.  Without election integrity, we are no longer a free nation. Brunson v. Adams would seem to be a rather obscure case originating in Utah that seeks redress for the violation of Mr. Brunson’s constitutional rights to participate in a fair and honest election. After the overwhelming irregularities observed in the 2020 Presidential election, ordinary citizens questioned the validity of those results. So did some intelligence agencies. In fact, there was palpable concern that foreign entities colluded with domestic actors to subvert the election, affect the outcome, and perform maneuvers favoring of a candidate aligned with their interests.  Some congressmen and a few senators raised valid arguments regarding electoral malfeasance. United States law provides a 10-day pause for Congress to review election-related data when such circumstances arise. This examination should have been conducted prior to certifying the electors that placed Biden into office.  Instead, Congress rushed to install what is arguably a Manchurian candidate into the Presidency of the United States. 291 Representatives failed to perform the legal requirement of reviewing prior to certifying. They intentionally refused to investigate the evidence and conspired to cover it up. By allowing fraudulent votes to be counted, they knowingly mocked their oath to support and protect the U.S. Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Brunson v. Adams focuses not on the outcome of the Presidential election, but on the representatives’ failure to fulfill their legal duties. The defendants should have rejected the electoral college votes from those states with untrustworthy, unreliable, and unworthy electoral systems. Instead, they committed what technically amounts to an act of war and treason. Should Brunson v. Adams succeed, the implications are staggering and life-altering. 291 Representatives, 94 US Senators, President Biden, V.P. Harris, and former V.P. Pence are defendants who could be removed from office and/or tried for high crimes for their participation in this illegal operation. We MUST convey to the Supreme Court our support of case 22-380. We feel our nation has been captured by corruption at the highest levels and are concerned that our country has experienced a national security breach. Our greatest right as citizens has been violated because our vote has been compromised and devalued. We are asking the Justices to grant Brunson’s petition.  So we are IMMEDIATELY writing letters to the Supreme Court of the United States – and are asking you to do the same. Imagine if SCOTUS received one million letters from ordinary Americans.  How about if 10 million students, grandmas, aunts, moms and dads sent them a note of encouragement? If America falls, so does the rest of the world. How about letters from Australia, Canada, Italy, Brazil … China? We must speak up now! While SCOTUS can choose to hear this case at any time, interestingly enough, it is scheduled to be in conference on January 6, 2023. Therefore, it is critical the justices receive a wave of our letters before they break for Christmas – so we must act TODAY.  Tell your friends and family and coworkers.  Have them tell theirs and those folks tell theirs!  Share this post.  Copy-and-paste it into an email.  Forward the W.I.N. newsletter.  Get this out to every single person you know. Here is how (please read all of the instructions): 1) Mail a letter to SCOTUS. The text is provided in the link but please make sure you add a P.S. Handwritten is best since personalization is extremely meaningful. Have your kids and grandkids send a letter as well. Ask them to draw a picture or decorate with stickers! CLICK HERE to go directly to the document which you can print, edit, personalize and mail. 2) Copy your letter. 3) MAIL the original to the Supreme Court and MAIL a copy to the Brunson Brothers. This is critical so the Brunson legal team can validate the amount of letters the Supreme Court is receiving. Supreme Court Address: Supreme Court of the United States Attn: Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr. and All Associate Justices 1 First Street N.E. Washington, DC 20543. Brunson Address: Loy & Raland Brunson 4287 South Harris Blvd. Apt. 132 Ogden, Utah 84403 4) Consider donating to the Brunsons to help pay for the legal costs of this litigation – CLICK HERE. 5) Send these instructions to your friends and family. Have letter-writing parties or host a zoom call to write letters together. Be creative, action-oriented, and effective! Reach out overseas: America may be the last light out unless we all come together. 6) Time is of essence. Please mail NOW. CLICK TO VIEW/DOWNLOAD SCOTUS 22-380 SAMPLE LETTER in PDF format To read the original posts with greater detail, go to: https://prayingmantis.substack.com/p/scotus-save-us Here is the link to the letter itself: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vpq-CWbB7mAihrYbmFNVM0FDfIKKWWkg2Nt8HQSZ2oA/edit# Here is a link to a site with a chronology of the lawsuit: https://www.newstreason.com/post/supreme-court-brunson-v-alma-s-adams-et-al-case-summary-and-timeline DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH – THIS CASE IS ALL OVER THE INTERNET. BUT GET THOSE LETTERS WRITTEN TODAY! This thing is really heating up... When I very first reported on it, people didn't even think it could be real. Now? Now EVERYONE is talking about it... ????? Mike Huckabee: "I Guarantee This Supreme Court Case Is Real..." When I first started covering the Brunson Brothers Supreme Court case, I got a lot of doubts and complaints. Grumbling, really. I compared it to the Israelites in the desert. Fair comparison. People saying the case wasn't real... People asking why The Gateway Pundit and Epoch Times hadn't covered it if it was real.... All this despite the fact that I showed the Supreme Court website and docket confirming it was real. Still, grumbling. And then? Then the Gateway Pundit covered it. Then the Epoch Times covered it. Now? Now Mike Huckabee is covering it, and not only that he says "I guarantee this is real". The leader paving the way always gets some slings and arrows in his back, and that's ok.  I'm used to it. But I was right and you should trust my reporting. We don't run with a story if it's not verified. And I had this one locked down to the "T". As in, President T may be returning soon! Here is Mike Huckabee: 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. The case has been added to the docket for, appropriately, January 6, 2023. There’s essentially no media attention being given to this case; most news outlets find it much too hot to touch. But the heat doesn’t faze us; we keep a pair of oven mitts close by for times like this. 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 (!). https://ralandbrunson.com 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… https://www.theepochtimes.com/supreme-court-weighs-on-brunson-v-alma-case-that-could-overturn-2020-election_4907648.html 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. And here is more of my original reporting: TRUMPet Supreme Court Case Moving Forward! Several weeks ago, I was one of the ONLY websites to tell you about Brunson v. Adams, the Supreme Court Case that may upend the 2020 election steal. In fact, I was so early that many people doubted it was real. Our articles are ALWAYS real. If I can't vet the article, I don't run it. And this was 100% vetted by the best source possible: the Supreme Court website! That's kind of what it means to be a journalist.... You take in all the information and sometimes you break the story! That's what we did here. So much so that one comment I read to my article said: I don't think it's real, I haven't seen the Epoch Times or Gateway Pundit cover it! Well....with all apologies to the commenter, the Epoch Times covered it shortly thereafter and The Gateway Pundit covered it today....again. I'm still waiting for my apology from the commenter (I forget who it was, they are not memorable) but I won't stay up all night waiting. In all seriousness, the story is VERY real and very exciting! From my friends at The Gateway Pundit, here is Tim Canova: 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 January 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. Such a course would seem to be clear violations of Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution which provides that Justices “shall hold their Offices during good Behavior.” In addition to such institutional threats to the Supreme Court, several Justices and their families have been living under constant threats to their personal security since the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Perhaps these institutional and security threats have provided powerful incentives for the Court to put Brunson v. Adams on its dockets as a shield to deter any efforts by the lame duck Congress to infringe on the Court’s independence. Or perhaps conservatives on the Court are serious about using the Brunson case as a sword to remove public officials who they believe have violated their constitutional Oaths of office by rubber-stamping Electors on Jan. 6th without first conducting any investigation of serious allegations of election fraud and foreign election interference. Moreover, recent weeks have brought a cascade of news suggesting the likelihood of an impending constitutional crisis that could be difficult to resolve without the Court’s intervention. It is now clear that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was colluding with social media giants Twitter and Facebook to censor news of Hunter Biden’s laptop in the weeks leading up to the 2020 election – a most egregious First Amendment violation intended to rig the election outcome and perhaps to install an unaccountable and criminal puppet government. Meanwhile, the January 6th committee may soon send a criminal referral to the Justice Department to arrest President Trump even though his reinstated tweets are a reminder that he was not calling for insurrection but for peaceful protest on January 6th. More recently, the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) was reportedly working with Big Tech to censor election critics.   Supreme Court Justices may well see these approaching storm clouds and conclude that the Court’s intervention is necessary to prevent larger civil unrest resulting from constitutional violations that are undermining public trust and confidence in the outcomes of both the 2020 and 2022 elections. When criminals break the law — state and federal statutes — to rig an election, we are dependent on prosecutions by law enforcement agencies that have sadly become politicized and complicit. When they break the Constitution — the supreme law of the land — to rig an election, the only recourse may be the Supreme Court or military tribunals.   As the Brunson lawsuit argues, all of Congress was put on notice prior to its January 6th vote by more than a hundred of its own members detailing serious allegations of election frauds and calling for creation of an electoral commission to investigate the allegations. Moreover, the Office of Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) was required to submit a report on foreign threats to the 2020 Presidential election by December 18, 2020. That deadline was set by executive order and by Congress itself. When December 18th came and went without ODNI submitting its report, Congress should have started asking questions and investigating. In fact, DNI John Ratcliffe announced on that day that the 17 U.S. intelligence agencies he was overseeing had found evidence of foreign election interference but were split as to its significance and whether such breach of national security was sufficient to overturn the outcome of the election. And yet there was no action whatsoever by Congress, no inquiry and no investigation. Instead, Congress approved the possibly fraudulent election results on January 6th without asking any questions of the DNI and the Intelligence Community. When the results of the 1876 presidential election were in doubt, Congress created a special Electoral Commission made up of five House members, five Senators, and five Supreme Court Justices to investigate. In contrast, in early 2021 Congress had nearly two weeks to investigate before the January 20th date of the Presidential Inauguration. Had Congress waited even just one more day to January 7th, they would have received the long-awaited ODNI report reflecting a split in the Intelligence Community and the DNI’s own conclusion that the People’s Republic of China had interfered to influence the outcome of the presidential election. As Dr. Barry A. Zulauf, the Analytic Ombudsman for the Intelligence Community, concluded at the time, the Intelligence Community shamefully delayed their findings until after the January 6th Electoral College certification by Congress because of their political disagreements with the Trump administration. This paints a picture of collusion and conspiracy involving members of Congress and U.S. intelligence agencies to coverup evidence of foreign election interference and constituting the crime of High Treason. The Brunson lawsuit does not claim the election was stolen, merely that a large majority of Congress, by failing to investigate such serious allegations of election rigging and breaches of national security, violated their Oaths to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic – an Oath also taken by Supreme Court Justices and members of the U.S. military. And if all of this is new to you, please allow me to bring you up to speed! Here was my most recent post explaining it all: TRUMPet Brothers Supreme Court Case Update! Simplified and Next Steps EXPLAINED! I continue to be laser focused on this Brunson Brothers Supreme Court case... And the more I learn the more I am blown away! And the more I am encouraged we have something very big happening here! I have a simplified summary of the case for everyone who is still confused and I also have an INCREDIBLE video you need to watch. Plus my take on what the next key date is... First, a few housekeeping comments. I know there is general fatigue out there. People are tired. People are weary. We've seen disappointments and defeats along the way and I fear that just as the victory is about to present itself, too many people have fallen asleep, became complacent or became downright grumpy! Take heart friends! I can't guarantee this case will be successful, but it does seem to have almost everything going for it. And I can promise you this: God will not fail.  That part I know. There might be a delay --- and how appropriate this is ADVENT season --- the season of waiting. Did you know that? Speaking of the Bible, I have a general warning and caution for anyone who has fallen asleep, became complacent or outright grumpy, and that warning is this: make sure you don't become an Exodus 14:11-12 Israelite. Exodus 14:11-12 They said to Moses, “Why did you bring us out of Egypt? Did you bring us out here in the desert to die? We could have died peacefully in Egypt; there were plenty of graves in Egypt. We told you this would happen! In Egypt we said, ‘Please don’t bother us. Let us stay and serve the Egyptians.’ It would have been better for us to stay and be slaves than to come out here and die in the desert.” The parallels are so apt.We've been calling for a Red Sea moment since the 2020 election was stolen, and now with our backs against the waters what I read in the comments section sounds EXACTLY like what I read above from Exodus.Don't go there.Take heart!Take hope!Hold strong!Stay in the fight!Now let me give you my short paraphrase of the case, as well as a short summary from The American Thinker and then I'll roll into a video that you HAVE TO see.Here's the short summary...You have 4 brothers, the Brunson Brothers.A couple of the brothers are attorneys.All four of the brothers are semi-famous for their TRUMPet playing. How cool is that? You can't make this stuff up. So the four brothers start asking the lawyer brothers what can be done about the election fraud. They come up with a theory. They file in Utah. That case stalls out in the 10th Circuit, intentional delay. So then they fine a "loophole" to file it directly to the Supreme Court. And guess what? 95% of cases are never taken by the Supreme Court.  They're simply ignored, and if they get ignored they are essentially rejected. The SCOTUS only chooses to accept a very small amount of cases filed. But in this case they don't ignore this one. In fact, according to reports, the Clerk of the Supreme Court reaches out to the brothers and tells them they need to make a couple changes to their filing...and they ask how quickly that can happen. The brothers say 2-4 weeks and the Court says please hurry. The brothers get it done in 1 week, and almost as soon as it's filed it is ACCEPTED by the SCOTUS. This already defies almost all odds. You need 4 Supreme Court Justices to agree to take a case and obviously 5 to win when the case is heard. I've seen comments from people saying: "This court is corrupt, they will never do anything about the election!" Oh how soon you forget! That's why God told Israel to build EBENEZER stones in the Bible...so they would not forget things so quickly! It was less than 6 months ago that this court did the unthinkable: they overturned Roe vs. Wade after 50 years! Did you forget about that? This same court may very well do the same thing here. At least 4 of them have already seemingly tipped their hand that they will. And it may end up being in their own self interest, because if they don't act the court may end up getting "Court Packed" by Liberals in the upcoming lame duck session. Very dangerous. Here's more from The American Thinker: "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." —Question of Law in the Supreme Court case known as Brunson v. Alma S. Adams; et al. (Biden, Harris, Pence & 385 Members of Congress) They Broke Their Oaths Loy, Raland, Deron, and Gaynor Brunson all witnessed what they believed to be the theft of the 2020 election and decided to file suit.  However, the interesting approach that they have taken is not to make a formal complaint that the election was stolen; instead, they have chosen to sue members of the U.S. Congress who voted not to investigate whether any election irregularities may have occurred that could have affected the outcome.  In other words, the Brunson Brothers were motivated to sue because these elected officials broketheir oaths to protect the Constitution of the United States. The Brunson Brothers believed that, to support and defend the Constitution, an investigation into possible fraud needed to take place.  Otherwise, how could anyone know with certainty whether the election had been secure? What shocked the Brunson Brothers was that only 147 members of the US Congress voted in support of the proposed ten-day audit of the election before certifying the ballot count of the Electoral College, while, according to the Washington Post, 377 members voted against the proposed ten-day investigation, and eight abstained. Supreme Court Docket No. 22-380 Eventually, the case — Raland J. Brunson, Petitioner v. Alma S. Adams, et al.— ended up on the docket of the Supreme Court .  The "Questions Presented" section, in Raland J. Brunson's Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, goes like this: A serious conflict exists between decisions rendered from this Court and lower appeal courts, along with constitutional provisions and statutes, in deciding whether the trial court has jurisdiction to try the merits of this case. This case uncovers a serious national security breach that is unique and is of first impression, and due to the serious nature of this case it involves the possible removal of a sitting President and Vice President of t