PING!
Interesting that they felt the need to respond.
Btw, a zoom call would have provided the same thing.
Would be nice if we had the audio of this. Otherwise, it’s just anonymous sources.
Ever since the 0bamaCare Case, 47% of America don’t have all that much respect for USSC and their “0pinions”..
I am skeptical of that claim.
I know conservatives do not trust the MSM, but that is not excuse to blindly accept anything we want to hear as being true.
A spokesperson for SCOTUS says.....
Blah blah blah blah....
Lets hear it from Justice Thomas or Alito.
Let them quell the rumor!
bookmark
MSM not reporting it, so it might be true.
Yawn, it doesn’t matter, they already ruled. Turn the page it’s over and lets focus on securing two GOP Senate seats in Georgia.
Interesting that the spokesperson isn’t denying that Roberts yelled at the other justices and used the threat of violence to not hear the case. All that is being disputed is that they met in person to discus the case. Since they were all in some kind of teleconference, was that hacked? It certainly could have been. From what is above, this reads as a non-denial of the important facts reported. Only one detail is denied, i.e., that they met in person at SCOTUS. Roberts needs to explain himself here without his usual weaseling.
The only thing about all of this I don’t believe is the justices lack of trust over the secure telephone comms. That is laughable.
Okay, so they responded to that.
Did they respond to the question of whether it was Chief Justice John Roberts’ name on the Epstein flight manifest, and if so, what did he do to the children on that island?
Any response is a clear admission of guilt...
Since when has the SCOTUS ever lowered itself to respond to any rumor???
As one of 74+ million Trump voters, as far as I’m concerned, John “Elections Have Consequences” Roberts has NO STANDING, and therefore, I will not be considering his case based on any merits or lack thereof.
What took so long to issue a denial?
.
Pretty much all public officials are subject to being asked questions on controversial issues. In some instances, the Supremes should be expected to answer questions. Each justice should be asked about the truthfulness of the story, and Roberts and Breyer should, under oath, confirm or deny that they had a conversation in which Roberts stated he would do all he could to prevent Trump from being President. If this is true, both Roberts and Breyer need to recuse themselves from further election rulings. This is too important for the justices to hide behind the “impartiality” skirts.
yeah, that part never made sense, and rather discredited anything that came after.