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

[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.

Not cash or direct bribery, but still selling access. These right-wing organizations and events are set up specifically to pay for high-end travel, hotels, meals, and any requested perks for the conservative justices to meet with wealthy corporate and evangelical Republican donors. The justices are the draw that gets donors to pay big bucks to these organizations for access and networking to build confidential inside access to the Justices. At least one Justice has a spouse who has long been paid by groups that seek this insider access and influence. There are many examples of justices going on private hunting, golfing, etc. trips with their “friends” who always turn out to be conservative activists who became their “friends” after they were on the Supreme Court.

[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.

Not cash or direct bribery, but still selling access. These right-wing organizations and events are set up specifically to pay for high-end travel, hotels, meals, and any requested perks for the conservative justices to meet with wealthy corporate and evangelical Republican donors. The justices are the draw that gets donors to pay big bucks to these organizations for access and networking to build confidential inside access to the Justices. At least one Justice has a spouse who has long been paid by groups that seek this insider access and influence. There are many examples of justices going on private hunting, golfing, etc. trips with their “friends” who always turn out to be conservative activists who became their “friends” after they were on the Supreme Court.

+1. It stinks to high hell. I strongly doubt the Federalist Society would look kindly on Justice Kagan taking girls trips with the president of Planned Parenthood, her bestie as of 10 minutes ago, or Justice Jackson picknicking with the founders of BLM while considering a Fourth Amendment or police brutality case.

[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.

Thanks for recommending this - it was really interesting as to what goes on with the Justices as well as what made Schenk change his mind about abortion.

[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!

Did you do your daily check in? It seems like you might have some opportunities to be fed evidence you will enthusiastically ignore.

[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.

I'm back! Any proof to share? I will absolutely admit I was wrong if it turns out Alito was the leaker. The question is, will YOU admit YOU were wrong if it turns out he was not? I think we all know the answer to that one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Who is "we"? There is no collective "we" who has realized the leaker is a "right winger" - just the group of you ninnies who would dearly love to believe this. So far, absolutely zero proof. And I'm a woman. Strange that you would assume I'm a man.

[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!

Did you do your daily check in? It seems like you might have some opportunities to be fed evidence you will enthusiastically ignore.

I will be waiting eagerly for any hard evidence to be presented. Thanks for the heads up!

[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!

Did you do your daily check in? It seems like you might have some opportunities to be fed evidence you will enthusiastically ignore.

I will be waiting eagerly for any hard evidence to be presented. Thanks for the heads up!

I’m curious what evidence would be acceptable to you. There’s probably no recording and probably nothing in writing, so what would be hard proof other than a confession?

[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!

Did you do your daily check in? It seems like you might have some opportunities to be fed evidence you will enthusiastically ignore.

I will be waiting eagerly for any hard evidence to be presented. Thanks for the heads up!

I’m curious what evidence would be acceptable to you. There’s probably no recording and probably nothing in writing, so what would be hard proof other than a confession?

DP. There’s nothing at all. The party that chants “lock her up” and believes in Q’a adrenochrome harvesting demands proof and by that they mean that even if emails among Alito, Ginni and Clarence surfaced and they all admitted it under oath, pp would still not believe it.

And for that troubled soul who will get his dander up no, I don’t believe those three conspired. I’m just pointing out how Repos will believe anything their party shovels at them, proof free.

[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!

Did you do your daily check in? It seems like you might have some opportunities to be fed evidence you will enthusiastically ignore.

I will be waiting eagerly for any hard evidence to be presented. Thanks for the heads up!

I’m curious what evidence would be acceptable to you. There’s probably no recording and probably nothing in writing, so what would be hard proof other than a confession?

DP. There’s nothing at all. The party that chants “lock her up” and believes in Q’a adrenochrome harvesting demands proof and by that they mean that even if emails among Alito, Ginni and Clarence surfaced and they all admitted it under oath, pp would still not believe it.

And for that troubled soul who will get his dander up no, I don’t believe those three conspired. I’m just pointing out how Repos will believe anything their party shovels at them, proof free.

That is true. Look at all that is happening with Trump. Even "proof" will not be good enough. They will just stick their fingers in their ears and go about their way. Proving stuff to randos is to keep non Repubs busy. In reality, they never cared.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Did you do your daily check in? It seems like you might have some opportunities to be fed evidence you will enthusiastically ignore.

I will be waiting eagerly for any hard evidence to be presented. Thanks for the heads up!

I’m curious what evidence would be acceptable to you. There’s probably no recording and probably nothing in writing, so what would be hard proof other than a confession?

DP. There’s nothing at all. The party that chants “lock her up” and believes in Q’a adrenochrome harvesting demands proof and by that they mean that even if emails among Alito, Ginni and Clarence surfaced and they all admitted it under oath, pp would still not believe it.

And for that troubled soul who will get his dander up no, I don’t believe those three conspired. I’m just pointing out how Repos will believe anything their party shovels at them, proof free.

That is true. Look at all that is happening with Trump. Even "proof" will not be good enough. They will just stick their fingers in their ears and go about their way. Proving stuff to randos is to keep non Repubs busy. In reality, they never cared.

I’m the pp who asked. That’s what I feel like too. I was just curious if any of them would answer. I mean, even if they gave an answer I know the goalposts would be moved when the time comes.

[Anonymous]

Alito is the leaker. End of story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Alito is the leaker. End of story.

It’s not the end of the story. It could be Thomas or his insurrectionist wife, too. Roberts investigated. He knows. He’s just not telling; that’s how we know it was a con and not a liberal justice.

[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!

Did you do your daily check in? It seems like you might have some opportunities to be fed evidence you will enthusiastically ignore.

I will be waiting eagerly for any hard evidence to be presented. Thanks for the heads up!

I’m curious what evidence would be acceptable to you. There’s probably no recording and probably nothing in writing, so what would be hard proof other than a confession?

A better question is why do you believe someone is guilty based ONLY on the claim of one person? A claim - not an email, phone recording, letter, text - nothing. Just some guy’s claim, denied by both parties. Surely you don’t think you can just point at someone and claim they’re guilty without proving it? Apparently you do. That seems to be the liberal way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Did you do your daily check in? It seems like you might have some opportunities to be fed evidence you will enthusiastically ignore.

I will be waiting eagerly for any hard evidence to be presented. Thanks for the heads up!

I’m curious what evidence would be acceptable to you. There’s probably no recording and probably nothing in writing, so what would be hard proof other than a confession?

DP. There’s nothing at all. The party that chants “lock her up” and believes in Q’a adrenochrome harvesting demands proof and by that they mean that even if emails among Alito, Ginni and Clarence surfaced and they all admitted it under oath, pp would still not believe it.

And for that troubled soul who will get his dander up no, I don’t believe those three conspired. I’m just pointing out how Repos will believe anything their party shovels at them, proof free.

That is true. Look at all that is happening with Trump. Even "proof" will not be good enough. They will just stick their fingers in their ears and go about their way. Proving stuff to randos is to keep non Repubs busy. In reality, they never cared.

I’m the pp who asked. That’s what I feel like too. I was just curious if any of them would answer. I mean, even if they gave an answer I know the goalposts would be moved when the time comes.

Except that at least two people have responded to your question - you seem to be conveniently ignoring those answers while you and your pal concoct bizarre flights of fancy to suit your narrative. Present some actual proof. That’s not too much to ask, and you know it. If an outlandish claim was being made about one of the liberal justices, you’d say exactly the same thing. Talk about moving goalposts.