• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why has the SCOTUS leak Source not been Identified?

Mycroft said:
didn't say anything about the court. I spoke of the Biden pukes and the media.
Click to expand...
Except the investigation into the leak is being conducted within the Supremer Court NOT the DoJ. The name of the leaker was the focus of your OP,
 
Crovax said:
Keep digging the hole deeper. You made a bullshit claim that you can not back up and now you are trying to weseal your way out of it. Not going to happen.
Click to expand...
Here you go, they have done a compete 180 from their confirmation statements. You can hear it yourself, they lied to get on SCOTUS.

 
Callen said:
Yes, do tell for those who think that the Supreme Court is deliberately sitting on this for political reasons. What purpose would it serve? Why would the majority go along with it? Why would Roberts do that?

It's much more likely that there is a legal/safety issue with publicly releasing the name of a private individual in what may not be a criminal act.
Click to expand...
Then obviously someone has been terminated recently. Shouldn’t be to hard to figure out who it was. Certainly this person is not still supporting the court.
 
VySky said:
And I’ll save some the trouble.

“They don’t know is not an acceptable answer”

What say you then?
Click to expand...
...why is 'they don't know' an unacceptable answer? How would they identify someone whose identity they don't know?

I think it was one of the conservative judges or their staff, who wanted this out farther before the midterms to give the GOP more time for damage control. They're never gonna admit to that, so that's why they haven't identified the person. Happy?
 
Gateman_Wen said:
Why not focus on the real issue instead of the distraction? Three recent supreme court nominees lied to get appointed and are now working together to destroy our personal freedoms.

Everyone knows it was Ginny Thomas anyway.
Click to expand...
bingo.
 
VySky said:
Then obviously someone has been terminated recently. Shouldn’t be to hard to figure out who it was. Certainly this person is not still supporting the court.
Click to expand...
Right, the logical conclusion is that this is an intentional leak that has approval of one or more of the justices. They're not actually going against the court's wishes, that's why nobody is being punished.
 
donhughesmusic said:
I don't know.

I'm not in there, so how would I?

Just because it's not an acceptable answer to you, doesn't mean it's not to others.
Click to expand...
I don’t know either. They not knowing is unacceptable
 
VySky said:
Then obviously someone has been terminated recently. Shouldn’t be to hard to figure out who it was. Certainly this person is not still supporting the court.
Click to expand...
Who do you think should figure that out?
 
Well the Marshall of the SC has been assigned the task of finding the leaker. That sounded doomed from the start. Still a chance the leaker will be exposed...... but found...not so sure about that.
 
Last edited:
jnug said:
Well the Marshall of the SC has been assigned the task of finding the leaker. That sounded doomed from the start. Still a chance the leaker will be exposed......found...not so sure about that.
Click to expand...
It’s been crickets since Robert’s vowed to find out. Might not of liked the report
 
VySky said:
Who is in charge of the investigation?
Click to expand...
The Supreme Court marshal of the court. Roberts appointed her so presumably she reports to him.
 
Callen said:
The Supreme Court marshal of the court. Roberts appointed her so presumably she reports to him.
Click to expand...
Then that is who I expect to provide some type of closure to the issue.
 
Its not like the members of the court are bound by a code of ethics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JMR
Mycroft said:
The Biden pukes and the media will just continue to ignore the leaker and hope people forget about it. And even if they don't, even if people keep asking questions, they will ignore the questions.

The leaker and the leak served their purposes.
Click to expand...


Biden has nothing to do with the Marshal of the United States Supreme Court or the United States Supreme Court Police.
 
VySky said:
It’s been crickets since Robert’s vowed to find out. Might not of liked the report
Click to expand...
Or maybe there are legal issues about releasing the name publicly.
 
Callen said:
Or maybe there are legal issues about releasing the name publicly.
Click to expand...
Then they should state their case. Let’s hear it.
 
itstony said:
Here you go, they have done a compete 180 from their confirmation statements. You can hear it yourself, they lied to get on SCOTUS.
Click to expand...


I'll bite. What statements did they make during their confirmations hearings that were lies? Their actual words would be helpful to explain your opinion.
 
VySky said:
It’s been crickets since Robert’s vowed to find out. Might not of liked the report
Click to expand...
Roberts is not going to like the answer no matter who it turns out to be
 
BlueTex said:
Biden has nothing to do with the Marshal of the United States Supreme Court or the United States Supreme Court Police.
Click to expand...
Mycroft didn't suggest he did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom