Roe out, question is who leaked???

103,328 Views | 1094 Replies | Last: 2 yr ago by Agthatbuilds
wbt5845
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Yeah, I have no idea what controls SCOTUS has.

As for us, every hard copy is numbered and tracked - has to be turned in at end of day OR inventoried and stored in a container. Two people have to verify container contents before locking so no way to lie about that.without collusion.

Hopefully the idiot found a computer with an active USB port and put it on a stick. That'll be the easiest way to track down the perp.
Keegan99
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It was, I think, hand stamped and dated, so likely an official printout, not an electronic transfer.

The most likely scenario in my mind is simply snagging it from the messy desk of a justice.
SpreadsheetAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
RebelE Infantry said:

Agthatbuilds said:




Desk pop!
SpreadsheetAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Agthatbuilds said:

Have we talked about the mechanics of the actual leak?

Is heard this from Mike Lee, who was a clerk-

There's a cpu system not connected to the internet on which justices and clerks work. It's completely contained within the Supreme Court offices and intended so that it can't be hacked nor can you email a copy of something to yourself.

There's a burn bag- if you need something printed out, which is apparently somewhat uncommon, then it is destroyed at the end of everyday. It is twice shredded, burned, and its ashes mixed with water so it can never be read or reconstituted.

It doesn't appear one can just come and go with whatever material they so desire.

Anyone have any insight on this?
Sandy Berger taped documents to his leg...

Cell phones have cameras (literal "screen shot")...
Who?mikejones!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I dont believe they are allowed to have their cell phones.

If they were, they aren't now!
. . .
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Who?mikejones!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
. . . said:




Wow...more than the KKK? Weather underground?
Ag87H2O
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Agthatbuilds said:



No no, they most definitely have the right and, indeed, the duty to change unconstitutional law. It's literally their job.
And to think this load of intellect passes for a U.S. Representative.

The only thing she represents very well is the ignorance of the members of her Party.
Daddy-O5
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I posted this in another thread, but worth repeating at this point.

R's: "We'd really rather you murder fewer babies, but if you're going to murder babies let's not decide it in the courts"

D's: "These racist MAGA people won't let the gays go to school!
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
In today's edition of whataboutism: Suddenly Dems are shouting about slippery slopes?
Decay
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Agthatbuilds said:

. . . said:




Wow...more than the KKK? Weather underground?
you can literally bomb the same building that people walked around in and not be considered as great a threat to "democracy"
Sea Speed
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
WHOOP!'91 said:

Keegan99 said:

This is a nonsense reply. The poster provided a pretty detailed explanation of controls that, if in place, would largely prevent "not following the rules they don't like".

How would you suggest the leak circumvented those controls?
I don't think anything would stop somebody from stuffing a printout down their shorts instead of putting it in the burn bag.


I work in top secret spaces. Depending on classification? Every is page printed out is logged and accounted for.
FrioAg 00
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I can verify this one, but really don't think this is correct. Have a friend who clerked for SCOTUS last year.

He spent a ton of time reading at home, but reading submissions may be very different from what gets written by scotus
Sea Speed
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
. . . said:




This is sickening and absolutely scary. Wow.
WHOOP!'91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Sea Speed said:

WHOOP!'91 said:

Keegan99 said:

This is a nonsense reply. The poster provided a pretty detailed explanation of controls that, if in place, would largely prevent "not following the rules they don't like".

How would you suggest the leak circumvented those controls?
I don't think anything would stop somebody from stuffing a printout down their shorts instead of putting it in the burn bag.


I work in top secret spaces. Depending on classification? Every is page printed out is logged and accounted for.
Well, this got out somehow. Maybe along with Christopher Walken's watch?
Who?mikejones!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FrioAg 00 said:

I can verify this one, but really don't think this is correct. Have a friend who clerked for SCOTUS last year.

He spent a ton of time reading at home, but reading submissions may be very different from what gets written by scotus


Thanks. Do you know if that was covid related?
Sea Speed
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
WHOOP!'91 said:

Sea Speed said:

WHOOP!'91 said:

Keegan99 said:

This is a nonsense reply. The poster provided a pretty detailed explanation of controls that, if in place, would largely prevent "not following the rules they don't like".

How would you suggest the leak circumvented those controls?
I don't think anything would stop somebody from stuffing a printout down their shorts instead of putting it in the burn bag.


I work in top secret spaces. Depending on classification? Every is page printed out is logged and accounted for.
Well, this got out somehow. Maybe along with Christopher Walken's watch?


Obviously. I'm just discussing controls that are in place in other need to know type gov installments.

I think lax protocols die to covid is probably a key part of this story.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'm starting to think it is Elizabeth Deutsch.

Quote:

We have a currently-serving Supreme Court law clerk whose career has been almost solely focused on abortion.

She wrote her law school note on abortion.
She wrote op-eds about reproductive rights.
She spent a year working on abortion for the ACLU.
She clerked for a stridently pro-choice appellate judge.

And it just so happens that her husband is a journalist, who shared bylines with Josh Gerstein at Politico, and it looks like they are still buds.


Ag13
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I will find it incredible if the leaker ends up being someone that could be so easily connected to the reporter that broke the story. I know criminals can be dumb, but everyone clerking is from Harvard, Yale, etc. You would think there would be some slight effort to throw off the scent.

I am quite certain the leaker's identity will be revealed. This is too big of a story to sweep under the rug.
aginlakeway
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ag13 said:

I will find it incredible if the leaker ends up being someone that could be so easily connected to the reporter that broke the story. I know criminals can be dumb, but everyone clerking is from Harvard, Yale, etc. You would think there would be some slight effort to throw off the scent.

I am quite certain the leaker's identity will be revealed. This is too big of a story to sweep under the rug.


Unless they think they'll be championed for leaking. Albeit likely disbarred.
"I'm sure that won't make a bit of difference for those of you who enjoy a baseless rage over the decisions of a few teenagers."
Boo Weekley
How long do you want to ignore this user?
aginlakeway said:

Ag13 said:

I will find it incredible if the leaker ends up being someone that could be so easily connected to the reporter that broke the story. I know criminals can be dumb, but everyone clerking is from Harvard, Yale, etc. You would think there would be some slight effort to throw off the scent.

I am quite certain the leaker's identity will be revealed. This is too big of a story to sweep under the rug.


Unless they think they'll be championed for leaking. Albeit likely disbarred.
This, they'll be canonized forever by the evil left and might even be able to make much more money taking this path in life than working the court system.
aginlakeway
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Boo Weekley said:

aginlakeway said:

Ag13 said:

I will find it incredible if the leaker ends up being someone that could be so easily connected to the reporter that broke the story. I know criminals can be dumb, but everyone clerking is from Harvard, Yale, etc. You would think there would be some slight effort to throw off the scent.

I am quite certain the leaker's identity will be revealed. This is too big of a story to sweep under the rug.


Unless they think they'll be championed for leaking. Albeit likely disbarred.
This, they'll be canonized forever by the evil left and might even be able to make much more money taking this path in life than working the court system.

Yep. Networks will pay a fortune for their services. As well other pro-Abortion organizations.
"I'm sure that won't make a bit of difference for those of you who enjoy a baseless rage over the decisions of a few teenagers."
Boo Weekley
How long do you want to ignore this user?
aginlakeway said:

Boo Weekley said:

aginlakeway said:

Ag13 said:

I will find it incredible if the leaker ends up being someone that could be so easily connected to the reporter that broke the story. I know criminals can be dumb, but everyone clerking is from Harvard, Yale, etc. You would think there would be some slight effort to throw off the scent.

I am quite certain the leaker's identity will be revealed. This is too big of a story to sweep under the rug.


Unless they think they'll be championed for leaking. Albeit likely disbarred.
This, they'll be canonized forever by the evil left and might even be able to make much more money taking this path in life than working the court system.

Yep. Networks will pay a fortune for their services. As well other pro-Abortion organizations.

EXACTLY. Might even be able to make a few $mil with a book deal...or become a regular media contributor.
Señor Chang
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
. . . said:


Is Biden saying the Supreme Court is part of the MAGA crowd? His ventriloquists need some better material.

American Hardwood
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ag13 said:

I will find it incredible if the leaker ends up being someone that could be so easily connected to the reporter that broke the story. I know criminals can be dumb, but everyone clerking is from Harvard, Yale, etc. You would think there would be some slight effort to throw off the scent.

I am quite certain the leaker's identity will be revealed. This is too big of a story to sweep under the rug.
Recent history shows that some people are treated (D)ifferently and face no consequences for their crimes. The perp in this case probably feels quite safe.
FrioAg 00
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Agthatbuilds said:

FrioAg 00 said:

I can verify this one, but really don't think this is correct. Have a friend who clerked for SCOTUS last year.

He spent a ton of time reading at home, but reading submissions may be very different from what gets written by scotus


Thanks. Do you know if that was covid related?


Ok, spoke with him. Verified that electronic documents would be very difficult but it's never been difficult at all to bring paper copies home.
FireAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
. . . said:



Someone help me…

How does a Roe v Wade decision keep LBGQT kids from attending school? I'm not connecting those dots…
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

How does a Roe v Wade decision keep LBGQT kids from attending school? I'm not connecting those dots…
something something...slippery slope...something something.
FrioAg 00
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It's called a red haring.

Yesterday they said this would lead to bans on interracial marriage.

Logic has nothing to do with this.
FireAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
FrioAg 00 said:

It's called a red haring.

Yesterday they said this would lead to bans on interracial marriage.

Logic has nothing to do with this.

School attendance and interracial marriages would still be protected civil rights, am I wrong?

Roe has no impact on civil rights that I am aware of…
BenFiasco14
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Señor Chang said:

. . . said:


Is Biden saying the Supreme Court is part of the MAGA crowd? His ventriloquists need some better material.




Wtf does this have to do with lgbt ??
CNN is an enemy of the state and should be treated as such.
FireAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BenFiasco14 said:

Señor Chang said:

. . . said:


Is Biden saying the Supreme Court is part of the MAGA crowd? His ventriloquists need some better material.




Wtf does this have to do with lgbt ??

That's what I'm saying…did Joe get his court fights mixed up?
FrioAg 00
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
You seem to be under the assumption that Joe or his puppeteers care about their statements being based in fact or truth

And Joe just reads (poorly) whatever they put in front of him
Actual Talking Thermos
How long do you want to ignore this user?
aggiehawg said:

In today's edition of whataboutism: Suddenly Dems are shouting about slippery slopes?
Its less of a slippery slope and more of a water slide that Alito is attempting to construct with big flashing signs pointing to it. In terms of overturning Lawrence and Obergefell and generally allowing for legal persecution of/discrimination against LGBT folks.
Some Junkie Cosmonaut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BenFiasco14 said:

Señor Chang said:

. . . said:


Is Biden saying the Supreme Court is part of the MAGA crowd? His ventriloquists need some better material.




Wtf does this have to do with lgbt ??


He's starting to sound like a couple of our favorite former f16 posters.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.