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

[Anonymous]

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

Because you said so? No, hon. It doesn’t work like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Because you said so? No, hon. It doesn’t work like that.

How does it work, exactly, for the party of “lock her up”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The two responses between my question and that response were agreeing with me, not saying what’s acceptable proof from a conservative perspective. I quoted one of the responses. I didn’t ignore them. I really don’t understand what you’re trying to say. If there are answers to my question, after I asked it and before my 11:53 post, I don’t see them. Sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The two responses between my question and that response were agreeing with me, not saying what’s acceptable proof from a conservative perspective. I quoted one of the responses. I didn’t ignore them. I really don’t understand what you’re trying to say. If there are answers to my question, after I asked it and before my 11:53 post, I don’t see them. Sorry.

22:51 states very clearly that they would be happy to admit they were wrong if it turns out they were. I wasn’t talking about responses to your 11:53 post, just that if you’ve read the whole thread, you’re ignoring that post and others. It’s just one big circle jerk here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Because you said so? No, hon. It doesn’t work like that.

Spare me your whining, hon. Like it or not, Alito is the leaker. End of story.

So you keep insisting! Can’t wait to see how that “argument” goes over in a court of law. End of story, indeed. Do better if you want to be taken seriously.
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Because you said so? No, hon. It doesn’t work like that.

How does it work, exactly, for the party of “lock her up”?

I was never part of the “lock her up” crowd, but objectively there was actual evidence in that case.

There is way more evidence here.

Here, we know that Republican donors had access, by specific design, to conservative justices. This was by design to influence them. Alito does not deny having social get togethers with these donors. And one of them admits the leaker was Alito in one case and likely did here. There are texts and emails to back it up. No smoking gun, sure. But, we don't need the smoking gun.

BTW, the person who fingered Alito was part of that cabal, but since has changed his views. He is also a minister. Whatever you think of him, he has little incentive or motivation to lie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Because you said so? No, hon. It doesn’t work like that.

How does it work, exactly, for the party of “lock her up”?

I was never part of the “lock her up” crowd, but objectively there was actual evidence in that case.

There is way more evidence here.

Here, we know that Republican donors had access, by specific design, to conservative justices. This was by design to influence them. Alito does not deny having social get togethers with these donors. And one of them admits the leaker was Alito in one case and likely did here. There are texts and emails to back it up. No smoking gun, sure. But, we don't need the smoking gun.

BTW, the person who fingered Alito was part of that cabal, but since has changed his views. He is also a minister. Whatever you think of him, he has little incentive or motivation to lie.

Once again - all you have is conjecture. The only FACT is that Alito had dinner with this couple. That's it. What texts and emails? What, exactly, do they prove? None of this is evidence. You have a strange idea of what defines evidence. This isn't it.
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Because you said so? No, hon. It doesn’t work like that.

How does it work, exactly, for the party of “lock her up”?

I was never part of the “lock her up” crowd, but objectively there was actual evidence in that case.

There is way more evidence here.

Here, we know that Republican donors had access, by specific design, to conservative justices. This was by design to influence them. Alito does not deny having social get togethers with these donors. And one of them admits the leaker was Alito in one case and likely did here. There are texts and emails to back it up. No smoking gun, sure. But, we don't need the smoking gun.

BTW, the person who fingered Alito was part of that cabal, but since has changed his views. He is also a minister. Whatever you think of him, he has little incentive or motivation to lie.

Once again - all you have is conjecture. The only FACT is that Alito had dinner with this couple. That's it. What texts and emails? What, exactly, do they prove? None of this is evidence. You have a strange idea of what defines evidence. This isn't it.
DP

And once again, if Roberts ever gets off his thumbs and releases the results of the investigation, when it’s found which Republican justice leaked it, you and your other little friend will be nowhere at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Because you said so? No, hon. It doesn’t work like that.

How does it work, exactly, for the party of “lock her up”?

I was never part of the “lock her up” crowd, but objectively there was actual evidence in that case.

There is way more evidence here.

Here, we know that Republican donors had access, by specific design, to conservative justices. This was by design to influence them. Alito does not deny having social get togethers with these donors. And one of them admits the leaker was Alito in one case and likely did here. There are texts and emails to back it up. No smoking gun, sure. But, we don't need the smoking gun.

BTW, the person who fingered Alito was part of that cabal, but since has changed his views. He is also a minister. Whatever you think of him, he has little incentive or motivation to lie.

Once again - all you have is conjecture. The only FACT is that Alito had dinner with this couple. That's it. What texts and emails? What, exactly, do they prove? None of this is evidence. You have a strange idea of what defines evidence. This isn't it.
DP

It is evidence. It is evidence that is nowhere close to conclusive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The two responses between my question and that response were agreeing with me, not saying what’s acceptable proof from a conservative perspective. I quoted one of the responses. I didn’t ignore them. I really don’t understand what you’re trying to say. If there are answers to my question, after I asked it and before my 11:53 post, I don’t see them. Sorry.

22:51 states very clearly that they would be happy to admit they were wrong if it turns out they were. I wasn’t talking about responses to your 11:53 post, just that if you’ve read the whole thread, you’re ignoring that post and others. It’s just one big circle jerk here.

Then they didn’t actually respond to my question, which is what you said. And saying they’ll admit they’re wrong if it’s proved to their satisfaction is different from saying what proof they’ll accept as satisfactory. So basically none of what you said was true, but I’m the circle jerking, truth ignoring poster, but you’re the honest, attention to detail, unbiased poster? 😂

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Because you said so? No, hon. It doesn’t work like that.

How does it work, exactly, for the party of “lock her up”?

I was never part of the “lock her up” crowd, but objectively there was actual evidence in that case.

There is way more evidence here.

Here, we know that Republican donors had access, by specific design, to conservative justices. This was by design to influence them. Alito does not deny having social get togethers with these donors. And one of them admits the leaker was Alito in one case and likely did here. There are texts and emails to back it up. No smoking gun, sure. But, we don't need the smoking gun.

BTW, the person who fingered Alito was part of that cabal, but since has changed his views. He is also a minister. Whatever you think of him, he has little incentive or motivation to lie.

Once again - all you have is conjecture. The only FACT is that Alito had dinner with this couple. That's it. What texts and emails? What, exactly, do they prove? None of this is evidence. You have a strange idea of what defines evidence. This isn't it.
DP

And once again, if Roberts ever gets off his thumbs and releases the results of the investigation, when it’s found which Republican justice leaked it, you and your other little friend will be nowhere at all.

You think only two people are calling you out for your willingness to claim someone is guilty, with zero proof? I absolutely look forward to the results of this investigation. You'll be eating crow, even though you'll never have the integrity to admit it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The two responses between my question and that response were agreeing with me, not saying what’s acceptable proof from a conservative perspective. I quoted one of the responses. I didn’t ignore them. I really don’t understand what you’re trying to say. If there are answers to my question, after I asked it and before my 11:53 post, I don’t see them. Sorry.

22:51 states very clearly that they would be happy to admit they were wrong if it turns out they were. I wasn’t talking about responses to your 11:53 post, just that if you’ve read the whole thread, you’re ignoring that post and others. It’s just one big circle jerk here.

Then they didn’t actually respond to my question, which is what you said. And saying they’ll admit they’re wrong if it’s proved to their satisfaction is different from saying what proof they’ll accept as satisfactory. So basically none of what you said was true, but I’m the circle jerking, truth ignoring poster, but you’re the honest, attention to detail, unbiased poster? 😂

Yes. Yes you are. Continuing to childishly insist someone is guilty, with not a shred of real evidence, makes you "truth ignoring," and more. I'll wait until all the facts and proof come out, one way or the other. Feel free to continue your usual rampage, claiming people are guilty with absolutely no hard evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The two responses between my question and that response were agreeing with me, not saying what’s acceptable proof from a conservative perspective. I quoted one of the responses. I didn’t ignore them. I really don’t understand what you’re trying to say. If there are answers to my question, after I asked it and before my 11:53 post, I don’t see them. Sorry.

22:51 states very clearly that they would be happy to admit they were wrong if it turns out they were. I wasn’t talking about responses to your 11:53 post, just that if you’ve read the whole thread, you’re ignoring that post and others. It’s just one big circle jerk here.

Then they didn’t actually respond to my question, which is what you said. And saying they’ll admit they’re wrong if it’s proved to their satisfaction is different from saying what proof they’ll accept as satisfactory. So basically none of what you said was true, but I’m the circle jerking, truth ignoring poster, but you’re the honest, attention to detail, unbiased poster? 😂

Yes. Yes you are. Continuing to childishly insist someone is guilty, with not a shred of real evidence, makes you "truth ignoring," and more. I'll wait until all the facts and proof come out, one way or the other. Feel free to continue your usual rampage, claiming people are guilty with absolutely no hard evidence.

I never said he was guilty. I asked what would be acceptable proof considering they probably didn’t record their own conversations. You said my question was addressed and it wasn’t. I even apologized if I had overlooked a response, but I hadn’t. You then called me names and said I did some things I didn’t. And now you’re saying I’m insisting Ali to use guilty with no hard evidence. We’ve come full circle. What evidence would you accept, given that absolute proof (a video or audio recording) probably doesn’t exist. Would it take a confession from someone involved? Confessions from all involved? Someone on the inside referencing it in an email and no one denying it until the email is public? All I’ve been asking is what would it take to prove it? You’ve made false accusations and moved the goalposts instead of answering so I assume that either nothing would prove it or whatever standard you set will change if it’s ever met. And honestly, I’d respect you more if you came out and said nothing could prove it to me short of a video, not even confessions from all involved because confessions could be coerced. I’d think you’re nutty, but I’d respect your self awareness and honesty.

[Anonymous]

When does the result of Robert's investigation/coverup become public?

[Anonymous]

I think the most likely scenario is that Alito did not leak it to the press, but he leaked it to anti-abortion activists so they would pressure Roberts to back off, and one of the anti-abortion groups leaked it to the press.