Bombshell: NYT story suggests Alito is the leaker of Dobbs decision

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Jesus.

[Anonymous]

It sounds to me like they all know full well who did it, but the culprit is going to get away with it because Republicans have all agreed that they’re above the law and beyond consequences.

[Anonymous]

I posted in another thread re: Roe. Go to listen to today's The Daily which concerns this very subject. He absolutely leaked it. And the entire SCOTUS is a sham institution beholden to external influences. The years long effort to influence the Roe overturning is absolutely despicable.

[Anonymous]

Just doing my daily check in to see if any actual evidence has emerged as to who the leaker is. No? Didn't think so. I'll check back tomorrow!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just doing my daily check in to see if any actual evidence has emerged as to who the leaker is. No? Didn't think so. I'll check back tomorrow!

Ask the anti-abortion lobby groups. They know who leaks to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just doing my daily check in to see if any actual evidence has emerged as to who the leaker is. No? Didn't think so. I'll check back tomorrow!

Ask the anti-abortion lobby groups. They know who leaks to them.

And who they bribe for the leaks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just doing my daily check in to see if any actual evidence has emerged as to who the leaker is. No? Didn't think so. I'll check back tomorrow!

Ask the anti-abortion lobby groups. They know who leaks to them.

And who they bribe for the leaks.

So again - zero evidence? Just wild conspiracy theories? Got it. Keep up the good fight, internet sleuths!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just doing my daily check in to see if any actual evidence has emerged as to who the leaker is. No? Didn't think so. I'll check back tomorrow!

Call Roberts’s office and ask whatever happened to the most important investigation ever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just doing my daily check in to see if any actual evidence has emerged as to who the leaker is. No? Didn't think so. I'll check back tomorrow!

Ask the anti-abortion lobby groups. They know who leaks to them.

And who they bribe for the leaks.

So again - zero evidence? Just wild conspiracy theories? Got it. Keep up the good fight, internet sleuths!

We will never hear from you again when the proof comes out into the open.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just doing my daily check in to see if any actual evidence has emerged as to who the leaker is. No? Didn't think so. I'll check back tomorrow!

Ask the anti-abortion lobby groups. They know who leaks to them.

And who they bribe for the leaks.

So again - zero evidence? Just wild conspiracy theories? Got it. Keep up the good fight, internet sleuths!

We will never hear from you again when the proof comes out into the open.

+1

If it’s him, PP won’t ever come back to say he should be held accountable. PP will find some way to excuse him.

Laws/ethics don’t apply to the GOP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just doing my daily check in to see if any actual evidence has emerged as to who the leaker is. No? Didn't think so. I'll check back tomorrow!

Ask the anti-abortion lobby groups. They know who leaks to them.

And who they bribe for the leaks.

So again - zero evidence? Just wild conspiracy theories? Got it. Keep up the good fight, internet sleuths!

We will never hear from you again when the proof comes out into the open.

+1

If it’s him, PP won’t ever come back to say he should be held accountable. PP will find some way to excuse him.

Laws/ethics don’t apply to the GOP.

+2 Not sure why he thinks he’s so pure when he’s probably obsessing over in the thread about the guy who got arrested at the Minneapolis airport. That bothers him greatly but now that we’ve all realized that the leaker is a right winger, he thinks it’s funny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just doing my daily check in to see if any actual evidence has emerged as to who the leaker is. No? Didn't think so. I'll check back tomorrow!

Ask the anti-abortion lobby groups. They know who leaks to them.

And who they bribe for the leaks.

Yesterday's The Daily was about this - the guy who is the source for the NY Times story presented a compelling case that there wasn't any bribery or anything. More like wealthy, anti-abortion people were deployed to a lot of social occasions where the justices would be to cultivate friendships - and it worked. And out of those friendships came these disclosures about decisions that were coming. It was a very credible account.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/29/podcasts/the-daily/supreme-court-abortion-roe-v-wade.html

Maybe there's bribery - but there seem like easier ways for justices to make $. Clerks, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just doing my daily check in to see if any actual evidence has emerged as to who the leaker is. No? Didn't think so. I'll check back tomorrow!

Ask the anti-abortion lobby groups. They know who leaks to them.

And who they bribe for the leaks.

Yesterday's The Daily was about this - the guy who is the source for the NY Times story presented a compelling case that there wasn't any bribery or anything. More like wealthy, anti-abortion people were deployed to a lot of social occasions where the justices would be to cultivate friendships - and it worked. And out of those friendships came these disclosures about decisions that were coming. It was a very credible account.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/29/podcasts/the-daily/supreme-court-abortion-roe-v-wade.html

Maybe there's bribery - but there seem like easier ways for justices to make $. Clerks, too.

Like another PP above, I listened to the NYT The Daily podcast in which the author of the NYT article was interviewed. You are right. There was no hint of bribery--just an attempt to influence and gather information by cultivating friendships over years. According to the main source, these friendships were genuine and included wives, so it wasn't a scam like another PP said, but rather a masterful attempt to play the long game to overturn RvW by placing certain couples in the orbit of SC justices. Another takeaway was that because the SC court is a self-policing institution (which rarely polices itself), it is vulnerable to being influenced (the article's author used the word "permeable"). Makes one wonder which other justices shared information with friends....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just doing my daily check in to see if any actual evidence has emerged as to who the leaker is. No? Didn't think so. I'll check back tomorrow!

Ask the anti-abortion lobby groups. They know who leaks to them.

And who they bribe for the leaks.

Yesterday's The Daily was about this - the guy who is the source for the NY Times story presented a compelling case that there wasn't any bribery or anything. More like wealthy, anti-abortion people were deployed to a lot of social occasions where the justices would be to cultivate friendships - and it worked. And out of those friendships came these disclosures about decisions that were coming. It was a very credible account.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/29/podcasts/the-daily/supreme-court-abortion-roe-v-wade.html

Maybe there's bribery - but there seem like easier ways for justices to make $. Clerks, too.

Like another PP above, I listened to the NYT The Daily podcast in which the author of the NYT article was interviewed. You are right. There was no hint of bribery--just an attempt to influence and gather information by cultivating friendships over years. According to the main source, these friendships were genuine and included wives, so it wasn't a scam like another PP said, but rather a masterful attempt to play the long game to overturn RvW by placing certain couples in the orbit of SC justices. Another takeaway was that because the SC court is a self-policing institution (which rarely polices itself), it is vulnerable to being influenced (the article's author used the word "permeable"). Makes one wonder which other justices shared information with friends....

I am PP - and it reminded me of The Americans, actually, the way they described cultivating and deploying these friendships.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just doing my daily check in to see if any actual evidence has emerged as to who the leaker is. No? Didn't think so. I'll check back tomorrow!

Ask the anti-abortion lobby groups. They know who leaks to them.

And who they bribe for the leaks.

Yesterday's The Daily was about this - the guy who is the source for the NY Times story presented a compelling case that there wasn't any bribery or anything. More like wealthy, anti-abortion people were deployed to a lot of social occasions where the justices would be to cultivate friendships - and it worked. And out of those friendships came these disclosures about decisions that were coming. It was a very credible account.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/29/podcasts/the-daily/supreme-court-abortion-roe-v-wade.html

Maybe there's bribery - but there seem like easier ways for justices to make $. Clerks, too.

Like another PP above, I listened to the NYT The Daily podcast in which the author of the NYT article was interviewed. You are right. There was no hint of bribery--just an attempt to influence and gather information by cultivating friendships over years. According to the main source, these friendships were genuine and included wives, so it wasn't a scam like another PP said, but rather a masterful attempt to play the long game to overturn RvW by placing certain couples in the orbit of SC justices. Another takeaway was that because the SC court is a self-policing institution (which rarely polices itself), it is vulnerable to being influenced (the article's author used the word "permeable"). Makes one wonder which other justices shared information with friends....

Thank you to the GOP then, for the playbook for how to "reinterpret" 2a. Come on Dems, you got this. Start schmoozing.