[hoosiermama]

Said before and will again. I believe Roberts was told of a sealed indictment of the whistle blower and the possibility that he might have to adjudicate in his case. Therefore so he would not have to remove himself from a potential 5-4 decision decided now was the time to not be involved.

Only possibility I can think of. Otherwise why would someone give him the heads up on the name. Someone had to do that.

[CottonBall]

Interesting! That’s about the only thing that makes sense.

[Rusty0604]

I would like to believe that’s true. But in reality, can we move that slow? Besides, if it is true that he is the whistleblower, the dems could say Roberts should recuse himself because he knew who the whistleblower was.

[stylin19a]

Otherwise why would someone give him the heads up on the name. Someone had to do that.

I'm guessing, that by this time, the "supposed" WB name has been bandied about every freakin where and the CJ doesn't live in a vacuum.
I think he handled the question poorly. I think he should have just read the question and let the RATs faces turn purple and their heads explode trying not to say "you can't ask about the WB."