Chief Justice Roberts Activism Against Texas Suit with bonus video

A disturbing video of a C-SPAN broadcast about a staffer’s sworn testimony to hearing Judge Roberts screaming from the Supreme Court private meeting space about not wanting to hear the Texas case due to his apparent personal feelings about Trump.

Brad Johnson provides his analysis of this disturbing and alarming allegation and how courts allow activism over law.

After serving as a Senior CIA Operative and Chief of Station, Brad retired after 25 years and formed the non-profit Americans for Intelligence Reform. Please visit intelreform.org for an extensive library of material from a conservative and now censored point of view.

[expander_maker id=”8″ more=”Click for entire transcript” less=”Read less”]
brad johnson it is december the 18th a
00:02
very disturbing video has surfaced
00:05
where it looks like its testimonies from
00:07
c-span for one thing and its testimony
00:09
i guess in front of a senate committee
00:11
or but some kind of
00:13
testimony in front of a u.s government
00:14
body where
00:16
someone is saying that a staffer
00:18
submitted a report
00:20
that the u.s supreme court justices
00:24
actually turned down the texas request
00:27
to review the election results in the
00:29
swing states
00:31
because they felt not
00:34
that texas didn’t outstanding but for
00:36
another reason i’ll let you take it from
00:37
there because if this thing is true it’s
00:39
just so big it’s
00:40
it’s so big it’s depressing
00:50
it’s very alarming and just as it’s it’s
00:52
right in line with all the rest of the
00:53
things we’ve been hearing that’s been
00:55
going on with the voting and
00:58
just almost everything that’s out there
01:00
nowadays i don’t
01:01
you know you you can’t trust anybody in
01:03
the government to tell you the truth
01:04
about anything anymore
01:06
and this is just one more case of it so
01:09
the testimony that was provided on the
01:10
hill was
01:13
based on information from a staffer at
01:16
the supreme court so when the supreme
01:18
court
01:19
meets to decide what cases to accept and
01:23
which cases to turn down
01:25
they meet alone in a room so they’ll put
01:27
the nine of them in a room it’s a
01:29
conference room
01:30
where they’ll just sit and and they talk
01:32
about it and uh
01:33
this famously i mean this isn’t anything
01:35
new but famously those are done in
01:37
fairly collegial in a fairly collegial
01:39
atmosphere where they just
01:40
sit and chat it through and they kind of
01:42
vote on it and it requires
01:44
i believe it’s five to take on a case
01:46
and they can sort of either be pro or
01:48
against but think that the
01:49
case is worth worth worth uh hashing out
01:52
at the supreme court level
01:54
and if they find it you know below
01:56
standard then then
01:57
they they don’t vote enough won’t vote
01:59
to do it in this case
02:00
what we’re referring to here is that
02:02
vote that the state of texas
02:05
filed which is to say that their rights
02:09
were interfered with because
02:11
of the national elections
02:14
and that these five or six states that
02:16
screwed around the very last second
02:18
with how all the voting standards were
02:19
and all of that they
02:21
corrupted the election and therefore
02:23
texas suffered as a result of that they
02:25
didn’t
02:26
get the president they voted for is is
02:28
it in essence and so it’s
02:29
basically laying out that these last
02:31
minute rule changes and screwing around
02:33
with the
02:34
elections and how the results are
02:36
tabulated is unfair to the rest of the
02:38
country and we had
02:39
what a total of 18 states sign on to
02:41
that so that’s a sizable chunk now
02:43
what the staffer reported was you know
02:45
in essence what i had
02:46
mentioned that these quiet conversations
02:49
take place in this room and so
02:51
it’s just them sitting in there chatting
02:52
away the nine justices and nobody ever
02:54
knows really what
02:55
is said in there however in this
02:57
particular case on that texas case
03:00
chief justice roberts who you know has
03:02
been
03:03
such a disappointment in every way shape
03:06
and form
03:06
is just so clearly over his head and is
03:09
unworthy of the position which he feels
03:12
proves that once again and was screaming
03:15
at the top of his lungs such that
03:17
everywhere uh in that area all of the
03:20
staff heard what was going on
03:22
and said you know in essence i’m
03:24
paraphrasing but said in essence
03:26
because uh some of the other justices
03:30
were arguing that in bush versus gore
03:33
bush v gore that set president precedent
03:37
and they needed to hear it uh because
03:39
this was a state level issued it should
03:40
be heard
03:42
justice roberts chief justice roberts
03:44
was screaming at the top of his lungs
03:47
you know don’t quote me that bush v gore
03:49
crap i don’t want to hear it
03:51
i am not giving that sob trump a chance
03:54
to be president
03:56
that isn’t now i’m paraphrasing but that
03:58
is in essence what he was screaming at
04:00
this top of his lungs that all of
04:02
the supreme court staff were hearing
04:04
going on now
04:06
a couple of just alarmingly important
04:08
things out of that
04:09
first when he says you know i don’t want
04:11
to hear any more about the bush v
04:13
gore what he’s saying in that is i don’t
04:16
give a [ __ ] what the laws are
04:18
that’s it that’s a bottom line you have
04:20
the chief justice of the supreme court
04:22
of the united states saying i don’t care
04:24
what the laws are
04:26
so he threw out the legal argument
04:29
and went right to his personal
04:31
perspective and his personal perspective
04:33
is
04:33
if he’s calling trump an sob it doesn’t
04:36
mean they’re best buds and having coffee
04:38
and and crumpets every night you know so
04:41
there
04:42
they you know he hates trump and so he
04:44
was allowing his personal feelings on
04:46
the thing
04:47
to overcome all of his responsibilities
04:49
as a justice of the supreme court
04:51
and so that’s precisely what happened
04:54
president trump
04:55
was uh sabotaged
04:59
by the supreme court because of the
05:01
personal feelings
05:03
of several of the justices most
05:05
assuredly
05:06
if all this is true the
05:09
chief justice roberts of the supreme
05:11
court which personally i think all this
05:13
sounds dead on right
05:15
and that case was something that should
05:16
have at least been heard if it had lost
05:19
on its merits that would have been one
05:20
thing
05:21
but to be summarily dismissed saying
05:22
texas doesn’t have status they didn’t
05:24
want to listen to the case at all
05:26
and i you know the the the way that this
05:29
turned out and um
05:33
the votes and all of that i think are a
05:35
strong indicator of the truth of the
05:37
story
05:38
that’s being testified to under oath on
05:41
the hill if my understanding is correct
05:42
that that was testimony not just
05:44
a guy getting up and talking so uh it
05:48
does it goes to one of my great worries
05:50
out of this that chief justice roberts
05:51
who is a bush appointee
05:54
lets his personal feelings overcome what
05:56
he knows is to be right or wrong and the
05:58
law or not the law of the land
06:01
and his oath is to uphold those laws
06:04
so he is obligated in every way shape
06:07
and form
06:07
by honor uh by duty
06:10
uh all of those things he’s obligated to
06:14
have listened to that argument of bush v
06:16
gore and say indeed there is precedent
06:20
and therefore indeed the court needs to
06:22
react in a certain specific way
06:24
because that’s how the laws of the land
06:25
are set up but
06:27
that’s not what he did and this is one
06:28
of those things that i think once again
06:30
much like what we saw with obamacare he
06:33
lets his personal feelings guide him
06:35
not the law which is his freaking job
06:39
so you know it’s just it’s just this man
06:41
so completely and utterly and stunningly
06:43
over his head
06:44
the incompetence shows at all times i
06:46
mean i
06:47
me personally which makes no difference
06:49
on anything anywhere whatsoever
06:51
i think that the man if he had any honor
06:53
whatsoever got caught like this
06:55
would resign uh which he which he should
06:58
do now
06:58
i i while i would say i would love to
07:01
see him resign i don’t want him to
07:02
resign
07:03
right now because you know i certainly
07:06
want if it turns out i wouldn’t want
07:07
biten to have a chance to replace the
07:09
chief sausage so
07:10
we’re stuck with this half-wit roberts
07:14
who though an intelligent man has made
07:16
himself into a buffoon
07:18
and uh and again this is one of those
07:19
cases where we’ve seen this play out
07:21
i think we have a custom in the united
07:23
states of america
07:25
that is that we you know we treat the
07:27
chief justices with all this respect and
07:28
don’t criticize them
07:30
and i think that is a a very unfortunate
07:33
uh decision in the united states and
07:35
and uh something i’m certainly not going
07:36
to adhere to have not been inherent to
07:39
and i’m not going to adhere to again
07:40
this was a very stupid reason this is an
07:43
activist
07:44
supreme court judge who does precisely
07:46
what activists do
07:48
and they take what they want and put it
07:51
as a supreme uh you know
07:55
you know objective over what they’re
07:57
supposed to be doing
07:59
through honor and duty to be upholding
08:01
the laws of the land and that’s what
08:02
activism is activist judges
08:04
activists law enforcement activist
08:05
politicians all of these people and this
08:08
is just one more case of one more guy
08:09
like that
08:10
and i will say it’s just one more
08:12
example of of how
08:14
president trump tragically in his
08:17
presidency made it
08:18
just a horrendous error in judgment
08:22
from the very get-go one of the few
08:24
things i think you can
08:25
legitimately point to about trump and
08:27
say wow did he screw up there
08:29
and that is he turned to the republican
08:31
party
08:32
and he turned specifically to people who
08:35
were out of the bush uh camp if you will
08:39
the bush
08:40
family uh camp and the bush family
08:43
hates trump something we’ve mentioned
08:45
many times before uh former president
08:47
bush
08:48
blames trump for the criticism that he
08:50
did during the elections
08:52
of his brother who was running for
08:54
president for the death of his mother he
08:57
thinks that the stress that that put her
08:58
under
09:00
uh because of all the trump criticism of
09:03
her of
09:03
the of their their other brother running
09:05
for president that that that’s what
09:07
killed them on so
09:09
i you know i i feel bad the mom was you
09:12
know an icon and all of that
09:13
and certainly you’re not glad that the
09:16
the woman
09:16
died but you know those things are in
09:19
god’s hands they’re not in trump’s hands
09:20
so i think it’s a little silly
09:22
to really blame trump personally for the
09:24
death of his mother who was
09:25
let’s face it she was an older woman in
09:26
her 90s and and you know you just can’t
09:29
can’t count on such things to uh you
09:31
know
09:32
long life once you reach your 90s you’ve
09:34
done well
09:36
the talks it was written by someone
09:39
who’s a
09:40
current staffer for one of the supreme
09:43
court justices
09:45
and this i’ll just describe the report
09:47
to you that i read you can make it what
09:48
you will
09:50
um he said that the justices as they
09:52
always do went into a closed
09:54
room to discuss you know cases they’re
09:56
taking or debate
09:58
there’s no phones no computers no
09:59
nothing no one else is in the room
10:01
except for the nine justices
10:03
it’s typically very civil they usually
10:06
don’t hear any sounds they just
10:07
debate what they’re doing but when the
10:10
texas case was brought up
10:12
he said he heard screaming through the
10:14
walls
10:16
as justice roberts and the other liberal
10:19
justices
10:21
were insisting that this case not be
10:25
taken
10:25
up um and the reason the works occurred
10:29
to the wall
10:31
when justice thomas and justice lolito
10:34
were citing bush first score
10:37
from john roberts where i don’t give up
10:41
about that case i don’t want to hear
10:43
about it
10:44
at that time we didn’t have riots
10:50
so what he was saying was that he was
10:53
afraid
10:55
of what would happen if they did the
10:58
right thing
11:01
and i’m sorry but that is moral
11:04
cowardice and and we
11:07
in the srec i’m an srac member
11:10
we put those words in very specifically
11:13
because the charge of the supreme court
11:17
is to ultimately be our final arbitrator
11:20
our final line of defense for right
11:24
and wrong and they did not do their
11:28
duty so i think we should leave these
11:31
words in
11:32
because i want to send a strong message
11:34
to them
11:35
thank you
11:56
[Music]
12:16
you
[/expander_maker]