Lawyering, Media, Supreme Court

“The Only One That Makes Sense”: NPR’s Totenberg Claims The “Leading Theory” is that the Leaker is a Conservative Clerk

Recently, National Public Radio’s Legal Affairs Correspondent Nina Totenberg was widely criticized for a false story about Justice Neil Gorsuch allegedly refusing to wear a mask during oral arguments despite a threat to the health of his colleague Justice Sonia Sotomayor. She also suggested that Sotomayor had to watch the oral arguments virtually due to his conduct. Gorsuch and Sotomayor issued a joint statement that called Totenberg’s story “false.” Now, Totenberg has made another bombshell report that “the leading theory” is that it was a conservative law clerk who leaked the opinion. While most of us have discussed this as one of the possible scenarios, Totenberg reports that it is now the “leading theory” in the investigation. Totenberg’s reporting, however, did not suggest that she has any factual basis or evidence to make that claim. She simply says that it is “the only one that makes sense.” It may be the only “sensible” choice for some, but it is hardly the “most likely” theory based on the available evidence.

Totenberg said on ABC’s “This Week” that the “leading theory” is that a conservative did this but added that she did not believe they would ever find the culprit:

There were those kinds of leaks but never an entire draft of a majority opinion, that has never, ever occurred before. And it can only, in all likelihood, have come from a justice, that I think is less likely, perhaps one of the clerks and the leading theory is a conservative clerk who was afraid that one of the conservatives might be persuaded by Chief Justice Roberts to join a much more moderate opinion, and then there’s another theory that it was an outraged liberal clerk.

But I think the only one that makes sense is that it came from somebody who was afraid that this majority might not hold, that Chief Justice Roberts might persuade one of the conservatives to come over to him in a much more moderate opinion.

However, Totenberg then added that “it’s very unlikely” that they will ever find the culprit. Hmmmm. So Totenberg is reporting that the leading theory is that a conservative did this but that, in the end, there is not likely to be sufficient evidence to establish who did it.

Given her earlier report, it is notable that Totenberg does not accuse Gorsuch. She agrees that it is highly unlikely that a justice was the culprit.

So why is the “leading theory” a conservative clerk? Totenberg insists that this was likely an effort of a conservative to lock in the majority to prevent backsliding. Why is that more likely that a liberal clerk trying to induce backsliding or simply trigger a public backlash. The leak immediately resulted in calls to pass the pending legislation to codify Roe v. Wade as well as a massive fundraising campaign by Democrats. It is also viewed as improving the prospects for Democrats in the midterm elections. Those are other possible motivations.

The fact is that we do not know, but Totenberg is reporting that the “leading theory” is that the conservatives did it. Indeed, she is saying that a conservative culprit is “the only one that makes sense.” So it does not make sense that a liberal clerk could also be motivated to go public?

Notably, many on the left have lionized the leaker under the theory that it was a liberal clerk.

After her prior sensational report, critics accused Totenberg of a long bias against conservatives on and off the Court. For her part, Totenberg did not take kindly to many denouncing her report as false or failing short of journalistic standards. When the NPR Ombudsman Kelly McBride raised concerns over her reporting, Totenberg responded that McBride “can write any goddamn thing she wants, whether or not I think it’s true.” (Notably, the justices have appeared for oral argument since October without masks — with the exception of Sotomayor — but she has appeared for oral argument).

I also do not know the basis for reporting that it is “unlikely” that the culprit will be found. We do not know what evidence is available to investigators and Totenberg does not claim such knowledge. We cannot assume that this reckless act was not done in a reckless way.

I remain surprised that Chief Justice John Roberts did not immediately call in the FBI, which is the world’s leader on computer and forensic investigations. Unless the Court is confident that they can find the culprit, the reliance on the Court’s internal police is a curious decision. I understand that it is problematic for the Judicial Branch to allow an investigation by the Executive Branch into the Court’s internal deliberations. However, there are ample means to protect confidentiality and to limit the scope of such FBI scrutiny.

I do not believe that you can assume that it is “more likely” that the culprit is conservative or liberal. Both are possibilities and anyone willing to trash every ethical principle is hardly predictable on intent. I still find it moronic to think that the leak would influence these justices who are motivated by deep principles on both sides. The only guarantee from the leak was that it would cause a political upheaval.

What does not “make sense” is that anyone would simply declare, on the face of the limited known facts, that this is most likely a conservative clerk.

155 thoughts on ““The Only One That Makes Sense”: NPR’s Totenberg Claims The “Leading Theory” is that the Leaker is a Conservative Clerk”

  1. C’mon.

    Totenberg is providing cover.

    Apply Occam’s Razor. There is no reason for a conservative clerk to release this.

    1. Ian Michael Gumby: Totenberg, at this point, has shown herself not to have an iota of respect for the truth.

  2. I solved the NPR problem years ago. I simply do not listen to them as far as news or analysis is concerned. I read multiple sources and get them from the right and left. I generally read news since it filters out the rolling eyes, screaming, and lots of unneeded noise and you can get deeper discussion. It’s easier to see the the BS than it is to hear it. If there is a notable news story It’s easy to find local sources without the spin of the national media. NPR just is not on my reading or listening list, ever.

  3. If I recall correctly, after listening daily to the entire Clarence Thomas “High tech lynching” lead by then Senator biden, Nina was biden’s strongest cheer leader. That speaks volumes for me.

  4. Blog Stooge Misinforming

    The Blog Stooge is demanding that government funding be eliminated for NPR. So the Stooge is employing his puppets to keep parroting this point. But the truth is that only 2% of NPR’s budget come from government sources. Below is a funding breakdown:
    ………………………………………………

    “While NPR does not receive any direct federal funding, it does receive a small number of competitive grants from CPB and federal agencies like the Department of Education and the Department of Commerce. This funding amounts to approximately 2% of NPR’s overall revenues”.
    ……………………………………………..

    One must point out that commercial radio stations in smaller markets are frequently ‘relay’ stations from distant cities. So NPR is the only local station serving many small markets. But the Blog Stooge is an ignoramus unaware of media issues.

    1. “only 2% of NPR’s budget come from government sources.”

      That is false (and you know it’s false) — as i explained in a detailed comment some time ago. Government funding flows to NPR via its cutouts (the local stations). You’re playing an accounting shell game.

    2. So then we should be able to cut all govt. funding to NPR and there will be no real affect correct?

  7. >>>I remain surprised that Chief Justice John Roberts did not immediately call in the FBI, which is the world’s leader on computer and forensic investigations. Unless the Court is confident that they can find the culprit, the reliance on the Court’s internal police is a curious decision. I understand that it is problematic for the Judicial Branch to allow an investigation by the Executive Branch into the Court’s internal deliberations. However, there are ample means to protect confidentiality and to limit the scope of such FBI scrutiny.<<<

    Perhaps one of the Chief's clerks is implicated? This is the only way that I think Tottenberg may have a "leading theory."

    1. Perhaps one of the Chief’s clerks is implicated? This is the only way that I think Tottenberg may have a “leading theory.”

      Few talk about. Turley has spent several post explaining, the Roberts Mission.

      Roberts is SCOTUS, Public Relations Director.

      Roberts works overtime trying to get the public to perceive his court as an apolitical, finder of law and Constitution. Roberts is going to vote with liberals of the court. Not because of his constitutional analysis, but rather his vote counting analysis. Roberts will not allow a decision that the splits along political divisions. Roberts always crosses over to be the lone conservative vote, with a liberal minority. Unless a liberal follows the constitution and joins the conservatives in the correct conclusion.

      1. “Roberts is going to vote with liberals of the court.”

        We don’t know this, and you shouldn’t pretend that your conjecture is fact.

        My own conjecture is that he’ll vote to uphold the MS law while also refusing to join in an opinion totally overturning Roe and Casey.

        But we won’t know until the final majority opinion plus any concurrences and dissents are released.

        As for “the correct conclusion,” that’s your opinion, based on your denial of 9th and 14th Amendment right for pregnant women to have bodily autonomy. A constitutionalist would say that states cannot pass laws that are contrary to 9th and 14th Amendment rights, any more than they can pass laws that are contrary to 1st Amendment rights.

        1. Its all an opinion.
          We know the draft opinion. we know it was 5-4. That means Roberts joins the liberals, to avoid a 6-3 majority abortion SCOTUS opinion is permanent historical record.
          Like I said. Roberts pushing a PR result.

          1. “we know it was 5-4”

            Actually, we don’t KNOW that. We’ve HEARD that it was 5-4, and that fits with what we know about the justices’ previous rulings and their conservative/liberal bias, but we don’t know the original vote, which might instead have been 6-3.

            Learn to distinguish facts from things whose truth-value is uncertain.

    2. “Perhaps one of the Chief’s clerks is implicated? This is the only way that I think Tottenberg may have a “leading theory.””

      “as of last week, the five-member majority to strike Roe remains intact, according to three conservatives close to the court who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter. A person close to the court’s most conservative members said Roberts told his fellow jurists in a private conference in early December that he planned to uphold the state law and write an opinion that left Roe and Casey in place for now. But the other conservatives were more interested in an opinion that overturned the precedents, the person said.”
      https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/07/supreme-court-abortion-roe-roberts-alito

      In a 4/26 editorial, the WSJ also reported some of the news about the December conference.

      AFAIK, only the Justices (not the clerks) participate in the justices’ private conference. This means that one or more of the justices told one or more people — clerks, family members, … — some of what was said at the private conference. That person might or might not be among the “three conservatives close to the court” who provided info about where things stand as of last week.

      Whether or not it’s a conservative who leaked the draft opinion, conservatives close to the court are clearly leaking additional information, and they’re allowing themselves to be identified as such.

      1. , conservatives close to the court are clearly leaking additional information, and they’re allowing themselves to be identified as such.
        According to WAPO. As accurate as the crack head jonesing for his next hit. As Turley reminded you. Totenberg had the scoop on SCOTUS mask scandal, quoting the exact same source as your WAPO article.
        You so enjoy being told what you want to hear.

        1. “Totenberg had the scoop on SCOTUS mask scandal, quoting the exact same source as your WAPO article.”

          There is absolutely no way of knowing whether the sources were the same. Truly bizarre for you to suggest that you know that.

          You’re free to believe that the Post is not reliable, but you don’t present a shred of evidence that they’ve ever falsely identified a source as “conservative.”

          1. There is absolutely no way of knowing whether the sources were the same

            Sure we know. Fabricated from between the ears of Totenberg. The two stories are exactly the same in their sourcing

  8. In other words: ‘This didn’t change polling the way we’d hoped. Blame the right and bury it.’. Pathetic and utterly transparent. I can’t fathom how it could be anyone but a woke staffer. They’ve set it up though so that even if said leaker is caught, it will be a ‘false accusation’, and ‘injustice’. Maybe they’ll erect a statue. 🙄🙄

    Our modern left is sick, they are depraved, they are insane, they are malevolent, there is no other way to express it, and I never thought I’d express that sentiment.

    1. If the leaker is caught and it turns out that the person is conservative, will you accept that, or will you say it’s a “false accusation” and “injustice”?

  9. In the absence of evidence, it is foolish to waste time on the question of who leaked the document (assuming it wasn’t obtained some other way). Both liberals and conservatives are capable of error and worse, and unless a conspiracy is revealed in all likelihood the ultimate revelation will prove only that one man or woman did wrong. Extrapolating from that to broad judgments about political opponents will also constitute error or worse.

  10. Totenberg is not a reporter, she is just a “famous” DC insider with friends in liberal high places. This “famous” “reporter” hasn’t hit the ground in 30 years, hasn’t knocked on a door in 40 years and hasn’t been fair since her days before going off to a liberal college.

    Totenberg works for the same “news agency” that has Yamiche Alcindor on staff as a “reporter”. The fact that the government takes the hard earned money of working conservatives to pay for this anti-conservative outfit is maddening. It is one thing to have the governemnt pay for somethings that some people don’t support, eg, the military, the IRS, schools or anything else that some object to for various reasons, but to take my money to pay for propaganda AGAINST me is beyond fair and just. PBS is not a needed function, it is a DNC tool of, dare I say it, MISINFORMATION.

    2. Thank you for explaining who Nina Totenberg is. The left is always looking for free government money and Totenberg is getting hers through PBS.

  11. Look up District Court Judge Amy Totenberg to get further insight into her sister Nina T., and their parents’ ‘political’ leanings.

  12. “By any means”
    Totenberg is making it up. But like Harry Reid, when he was called out for lying about Romeny’s taxes. “we won, didn’t we?”

    But she is on track with her prediction that we may never know the leaker. I bet Roberts knew in the first 24 hours.

    Then he followed the leftist play book, and decided not to investigate. Instead handing it over to SCOTUS Marshall. An entity that can’t compel testimony or issue warrants.
    Just like the DNC failed to give the FBI access to its servers to “investigate” the DNC hacked emails.

    1. The DNC had Crowdstrike turn over byte-for-byte copies of the servers.

      1. We’ve played this out before. No evidence exists. From Memory. FBI in front of congress kept saying the FBI agreed to the Crowdstrike findings and refused to say they conducted their own examination.

        1. You’re right that we’ve played this out before, but you’re lying that “no evidence exists.”

          The FBI got images of everything and did their own analysis. An “image” is an exact replica. The FBI has the operating system, boot information, apps, files, everything.

          Part of the Crowdstrike testimony to Congress under oath:
          MR. SCHlFF: And during those hundred or more contacts, did the FBI ever tell you that they needed the DNC server for their own forensic analysis?
          MR. HENRY: They asked us to provide to them the images of the computers and the results of our collection. They did ask for that, and we shared that with them.
          MR. SCHIFF: And did they ever indicate to you that they thought that the images that you had given them or the information you had given them was incomplete for their own analysis and they required access to the servers?
          MR. HENRY: I have no recollection of them saying that to me or anybody on my team, no.
          …
          MR. HENRY: we have software that we send in to the environment, it collects artifacts, if you will, of what happened — l mean, l’d equate it to shell casings or — it’s digital evidence – and pulls it back. lt’s the remnants of code. And we will sort through all that, analyze that. We provided that information to the FBI. I believe that there are a couple of actual digital images, which would be a copy of a hard drive that we also provided to the FBI. And there were — we’re talking about, I don’t know the exact number, but in excess of 10, I think, hard drives. Again, I believe you’ve got the documents, so I don’t want to say anything that’s inaccurate. But it’s not — we’re not talking about one drive.
          MR. SCHlFF: And those copies of the drives allow you to create a duplicate virtual environment as the DNC server?
          MR. HENRY: Yes.

          You want to pretend that testimony under oath isn’t evidence, even though testimony under oath (eye witness testimony, expert testimony, …) counts as evidence in trials all around the US.

          1. I never said the FBI never had the data. Only that when asked, the FBI said the agreed with the finding of Crowdstrike. They never testified they did their own investigation.

            2. I’ll wait for you to quote the testimony you’re alleging. (But I won’t hold my breath whle I wait.)

              The DNI stated in its report that “In July 2015, Russian intelligence gained access to Democratic National
              Committee (DNC) networks and maintained that access until at least June 2016. … We assess that the GRU operations resulted in the compromise of the personal e-mail accounts of Democratic Party officials and political figures.
              By May, the GRU had exfiltrated large volumes of data from the DNC. … We assess with high confidence that the GRU relayed material it acquired from the DNC and senior Democratic officials to WikiLeaks …”

              1. DNI repeating what the IC gave him. We know the IC was actively involved in the Russia Hoax (TM)

                1. As I said: I’ll wait for you to quote the testimony you’re alleging. (But I won’t hold my breath whle I wait.)

                  You apparently have no actual evidence for your claim. You simply wish to believe it.

              2. COMEY:Well we never got direct access to the machines themselves. The DNC in the spring of 2016 hired a firm that ultimately shared with us their forensics from their review of the system. …

                HURD:… So, Director FBI notified the DNC early, before any information was put on Wikileaksand when — youhave still been — never been given access to any of the technical or the physical machines that were — that were hacked by the Russians.

                COMEY: That’s correct although we got the forensics from the pros that they hired which — again, best practice is always to get access to the machines themselves, but this — my folks tell me was an appropriate substitute.

                https://consortiumnews.com/2019/06/17/fbi-never-saw-crowdstrike-unredacted-or-final-report-on-alleged-russian-hacking-because-none-was-produced/

                The part were Comey claimed he recieved ‘forensices’ , when later court filings admit the FBI has nothing. Only redacted draft reports from CrowdStrike.

                “This means the FBI and DOJ, and all of the downstream claims by the intelligence apparatus; including the December 2016 Joint Analysis Report and January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment, all the way to the Weissmann/Mueller report and the continued claims therein; were based on the official intelligence agencies of the U.S. government and the U.S. Department of Justice taking the word of a hired contractor for the Democrat party….. despite their inability to examine the server and/or actually see an unredacted technical forensic report from the investigating contractor.

                The entire apparatus of the U.S. government just took their word for it…

                …and used the claim therein as an official position….

                …which led to a subsequent government claim, in court, of absolute certainty that Russia hacked the DNC.”

                  1. “Brady material you claim the FBI used”??

                    Nope.

                    I didn’t say that the FBI used the Crowdstrike reports to the DNC. I said that Crowdstrike provided the FBI complete images of the servers. The fact that you don’t understand the difference only underscores that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

                2. You’re moving the goalposts.

                  You falsely claimed “the FBI never had the data,” and even in your own quote, Comey says “we got the forensics from the pros that they hired which — again, best practice is always to get access to the machines themselves, but this — my folks tell me was an appropriate substitute.”

                  What Comey calls “forensics” are the images of the servers. That’s the data.

                  1. That is not the definition of forensic.

                    Forensic is the result of the examination.

  15. “I do not believe that you can assume that it is “more likely” that the culprit is conservative or liberal.”

    Glad to agree. How does anyone determine the likelihood here? We do not know who leaked the draft or why.

    “Given her earlier report, it is notable that Totenberg does not accuse Gorsuch.”

    No, it’s not notable. She doesn’t think that it came directly from any of the justices.

    1. These are claims filed by by the defendant.

      Not vetted facts.

      Typical leftist tactics to muddy the information by using filings and not findings.

      1. There are facts in the exhibits appended to their motion (see the exhibits in Doc. 123: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60390583/united-states-v-sussmann/ ), and if Sussmann’s lawyers knowingly lie in their motion, they can be disciplined by the judge and/or the Bar.

        Are you claiming that they’ve doctored the exhibits?

        But if you want, fine, wait for Judge Cooper to rule on it. Will you accept his ruling?

        1. The information was delivered. Just buried in 20,000 pages of documents. Common practice, Not a crime.

          1. First, you’re moving the goalposts instead of admitting you were wrong when you claimed “Not vetted facts.” As always, you cannot bring yourself to say “I was wrong.”

            Second, I didn’t say it was a crime.

            Third, note the date of the delivery of those documents. That Brady material was required to have been turned over earlier. Also, precedent requires more than that it be turned over, when the DOJ knows where in the huge set the key references to a “client” are located, they are also supposed to identify the location(s).

            1. So what you admitt, this is no big deal. Normal legal filings back and forth, no crime cited.

              All you are doing is amplifying a non-story. in an attempt to smear Durham

              A literal ad hominem attack

              1. It isn’t a “non-story.” You’re just too lazy to read the details of why it matters. It’s relevant to Durham’s effort to prevent that evidence from being used by Sussmann at trial. Care to place a bet on how Judge Cooper will rule on the competing motions?

      2. The “facts” are likely true – the error is in the arguments.

        At best the memo in question limits the impact of Sussman’s lie to about 9 months.
        It is evident that the FBI knew Sussman worked for Clinton at the filling of the first FISA warrant – which is earlier than this.

        I really really do not like 18 USC 1001 prosecutions – including this one. I would prefer a filing false criminal complaints charge – as that is far more relevant.

        The 18 USC 1001 case against Sussman is much stronger than anything Mueller had, but it is still a crime that should not exist.

    2. It is not a brady violation until there is actual harm to the defendant.

      If Sussman’s PRETRIAL claim is correct – which I doubt, he is entitled to a delay on the prosecutors clock.
      It is possible he will get the former, unlikely the latter.

      There is battle over discovery at the moment – because the rest of the government – tied up in Ukraine is failing to declassify information as quickly as the court requires.

      Again Sussman is entitled to delays – if he wants them.

      A brady violation would occur if Sussman finalized a plea or went to trial without exculpatory discovery.

      Beyond that – while the memo cited is new – its contents are not.
      The note is from March 2017, The CHARGE is that Sussman lied to the FBI in mid 2016.

      The fact that the FBI knew 9 months later that Sussman was working for others does not alter the materiality at the time of the lie.

      This is in contrast to the Flynn and Papadoulous prosecutions where the FBI knew the truth BEFORE they were purportedly lied to.

      I would note that it is NOW well known publicly that the Steele Dossier was a product of the Clinton campaign at the time of the first FISA Warrant application – that was several months before this meeting. The FBI ultimately was in deep $hit with the FISA court for being opaque about the connection of the steele dossier to the clinton campaign in October 2016.

      We ALL already know that the FBI figured out that Sussman was working for the Clinton campaign.

      But timelines matter. If you lie to the FBI and much later the FBI finds out you lied, that does not make the lie immaterial.
      What matters is whether the FBI knew the truth at the time the lie was told and if not whether misleading them changed the investigation.

      1. ATS bases his claims on empty wheel rantings. Timelines don’t always matter at that website.

  17. What are the consequences for journalists who’s report is proven wrong? Can it, at least, be increased scrutiny of the next politically accusatory reports? Maybe another reporter covering similar assignments? They bring up another relief pitcher in Major League Baseball of the usual one starts blowing saves, or at other “important” endeavors … but not at NPR.

  18. “What does not “make sense” is that anyone would simply declare, on the face of the limited known facts, that this is most likely a conservative clerk.”
    ***************************
    When you work for radical NPR, are a confirmed liar and take arrogance to another level of shameful achievement then it makes perfect sense. One of the great failings of liberalism is that it doesn’t recognize evil in the world or if it does it won’t accept human agency in it.

    1. If you made one substitution — “When you work for radical Fox News, are a confirmed liar and take arrogance to another level of shameful achievement …” — your claim would be as true of Turley and Fox as it is of Totenberg and NPR.

  19. Turley says:

    “Totenberg’s reporting, however, did not cite suggest that she has any factual basis or evidence to make that claim. She simply says that it is “the only one that makes sense.” It may be the only sensible choice for some, but the narrowing of options appears driven more by bias than evidence at this point.”

    The same SHOULD have been said about Trump’s Big Lie that the election was rigged, but, sadly, Turley NEVER said as much about Trump’s false claim which ALSO was “driven more by bias than evidence.”

    1. JS:
      Oh there’s facts to anybody looking. You can start with the special counsel’s report in Wisconsin on FB bribery then move to investigations into voting drop box abuse in Georgia but you’d have to want to since the inept, corrupt, agendized media adopts your “nothing to see here” approach.

      1. Willful blindness affects both sides. That much I will agree.

    2. Okay, but he is talking about about the SCOTUS leak in this post.
      I do have a suggestions for you. If you don’t care for what Prof. Turley writes in HIS blogs, don’t read his blog. Problem solved.

        1. Appropriate use of the word Psychopaths instead of Sociopaths, such as Bill Gates, Fauci, Klaus Shwab, Soros,etc.

      2. It’s called free speech. I will point out Turley’s hypocrisy as I like, and there is absolutely nothing you can do to stop me. Is that clear?

    3. The evidence that the election was stolen is not clearly displayed in 2000 mules.

      Using mules for ballot trafficking (illegal), not harvesting (legal only in some places and limited), the reporters have satisfactorily proven that Trump won the election based on just a few areas in the nation using very restricted data. The win would have been more remarkable if they had used less restrictive and more representative numbers. The tracking is backed up by video, whistleblowers, testimony, etc.

      I thought there was lawlessness in the election but never thought we could satisfactorily prove that Trump won. The 2000 Mules documentary proves it. Everyone should see for themselves and watch the ballot traffickers act criminally. They also located many of the tax-exempt organizations where the ballots came from. They did additional investigations into the funding and other aspects of the election.

      Everyone should see the movie and pass it on. If we don’t talk about it and don’t fight for fair elections, we will live in a dictatorship with only the promise that our votes count when in reality, they didn’t count in 2020 and won’t matter in the future.

      1. Meyer’s Freudian slip is showing …
        “The evidence that the election was stolen is NOT clearly displayed in 2000 mules.”

        1. ATS, you didn’t see the movie, nor did you see the numbers or the evidence. You posted a link that I responded to. You had no response.

          You claim ballot harvesting is legal. Some are, but the trafficked ballots cast, not harvested in just a few sites, added up to enough votes that proved Biden lost, so you have a hard claim to prove your case.

          You don’t know the law. Once the law is broken, even legal harvesting becomes ballot trafficking. The law was broken at the non-profits where the mules went to pick up the ballots.

        1. Tell us your stories. Would you like to debate Dinesh at Dartmouth? You were a jerk then and a jerk now, so there is little hope that Dinesh would bother with you.

          When he was there, he didn’t have much time, but I am sure your mommy and daddy made sure you had a wonderful time at play. You didn’t learn much.

  20. I haven’t followed the ultra liberal Tottenberg since the late 80s. She is a crap reporter.

Comments are closed.