The legendary baseball player and manager Ted Williams once wrote a letter to the Angels outfielder Jay Johnstone on improving his hitting. Among his pieces of advice was that “with two strikes, you simply have to protect the plate.”
Williams’s advice on not striking out came to mind this week when another leak of confidential information rocked the Supreme Court. (The prior leak of the Dobbs decision went unsolved). For Chief Justice John Roberts, the message is clear: it is a time like this when you have to protect the plate.
Roberts, of course, is famous for his own baseball analogies. In his confirmation, he declared that “judges are like umpires. Umpires don’t make the rules. They apply them…Nobody ever went to a ballgame to see the umpire.”
Yet, justices do make rules not only in new precedent, but in the operation of the court system. Those rules are being broken.
In the same week as the new leak, Justice Sonia Sotomayor attacked her colleague Brett Kavanaugh as essentially an out-of-touch prig who had never even met an hourly wage worker. It was an unfair insult and a departure from the Court’s long-standing rules of civility. (Sotomayor later apologized).
Additionally, a forthcoming book by Mollie Hemingway on Justice Samuel Alito contains an embarrassing account of how Justice Elena Kagan allegedly screamed at Justice Stephen Breyer so loudly before the Dobbs opinion that the “wall was shaking.” (The book suggests that Kagan was upset with Breyer agreeing to spur along the dissents to get out the final opinions in light of rising threats against conservative colleagues after the leak).
For an institution that prides itself on its confidentiality and insularity, the Court is looking increasingly porous and partisan in these leaks. Worse yet, people are indeed coming to the Court “to see the umpires.”
The most recent leak was published by the New York Times, which was given internal memos from various Supreme Court justices on the use of what is known as the “shadow docket” to issue rulings without oral arguments.
Notably, the leaks occurred after a controversial speech by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson at Yale Law School in which she denounced the use of the shadow docket by her conservative colleagues to release decisions that were sometimes “utterly irrational.”
The memos reveal the concern of the justices that the Environmental Protection Agency was effectively gaming the system, imposing unlawful regulatory burdens on electric utilities despite a countervailing earlier ruling in Michigan v. EPA.
Chief Justice Roberts noted that the EPA was using the ongoing litigation to force utilities to spend billions of dollars to comply with the new regulations: “In other words the absence of stay allowed the agency to effectively implement an important program we held to be contrary to law.”
The controversy over the use of the shadow docket is immaterial to this story. The most immediate concern for Roberts should be that this is strike two: another leak from within the Court that was clearly designed to wound some of its members.
Unlike the Dobbs leak (which appeared to be an effort to influence the final opinion), this is a leak about a decade-old case. It had a purely malicious purpose to embarrass or disrupt the Court.
The question, again, is the identity of the culprit. There is no reason to assume that the same person was involved in both leaks. Rather, the leaks appear to reflect a deteriorating culture at the Court.
After the Dobbs leak, Chief Justice Roberts launched a fruitless investigation through the federal marshals to find the responsible person. The use of the marshals as the lead investigators (rather than the FBI) was criticized at the time. Roberts may have been sensitive to an executive-branch agency rooting around in the highest court of a sister branch.
The result was the worst possible outcome. The culprit succeeded in both leaking the opinion and evading any accountability.
The fact is that the Court’s culture and institutional identity have always been its greatest protection of confidentiality. In a city that floats on a rolling sea of leaks, the Court was an island of integrity and civility. The “umpires” could call balls and strikes without playing the leak game.
That culture is fast becoming nothing but a relic in the wake of yet another major leak. For the future of the Court and the faith of the public, Roberts has to set his reservations aside and bring in the FBI to find the culprit. Most importantly, he has to guarantee total transparency in allowing the public to see the results wherever they may lead. In other words, with two strikes, Roberts needs to protect the plate.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution
This column ran on Fox.com
Really: the left are not going to stop seeking absolute power by any means necessary, and their restraint in the face of law gets weaker and weaker. We really need to stop being surprised and vote accordingly. It was hyperbolic to say once, but now, everything really is on the line. This is the modern left *out* of power, imagine if they were actively pulling the levers, and forget the Biden cabal, awful as it is/was and look at VA – that is how swift it will be, nationwide.
it was determined that Sheldon Snook, Mary McCord’s husband was the leaker.
Apparently, it was not determined well enough for the FBI.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant whether it is the Epstein files or the Supreme Court. There is too much secrecy in government regardless of which administration is in charge. The people have a right to know what their government is doing.
Can’t the DOJ and FBI investigate for criminal activity? Clearly, Epstein is 99% political. If the Trump DOJ is corrupt and criminal, the Joke Biden DOJ was corrupter and criminaler longer ago, right, Einstein?
It appears that the Chief Justice believed that the EPA was imposing litigation costs on utilities to force them to comply with regulations which the SC had found unconstitutional. This was probably true. The federal government has at least two major advantages over its adversaries: a bottomless pocket and immunity from suit. It can use these advantages to destroy people’s lives.
By their actions, Sotomayor and Kagan demonstrate their adherence to that extralegal elephant that we’ve never evicted from the courtroom, namely: that immaturity and hysteria are women’s rights.
If they can’t be trusted to maintain their public dignity, they certainly can’t be trusted to honor an oath.
In Greece in 508 B.C., democracy was created. Greeks were very smart indeed. They rationally refused to allow women and the poor to vote, as women had a solemn duty to make and nurture Greeks and were very busy, and the poor were not vested.
We must not forget the role that collusive media played/plays in this. Anything for clickbait and propagandized/selective-fact headlines. I’m fairly and intuitively comfortable with concluding which factional team of the Court’s members is helping this undermining and chipping away at America’s most hallowed institutions.
(-Not that I encourage secrecy of scandal or uncomfortable truth. But I was raised under a protocol that mandated a time and a place for things.)
Turley’s focus on the ethics of the leak is a transparent attempt to ignore the actual rot the leak exposed: the Court’s unchecked reliance on the shadow docket. By fixating on the breach of secrecy, he effectively deflects from a system that increasingly allows the executive to bypass the standard appellate process. As Justice Jackson rightly argued, this practice ‘short-circuits’ the judiciary, replacing reasoned oral arguments with ‘scratch-paper musings’ that have the force of law without the transparency. Turley’s performance as an objective analyst is becoming increasingly disingenuous; he maintains a veneer of legal neutrality only to shield what are essentially authoritarian procedural shortcuts.
It’s hard to understand why he still bothers with the pretense when the goal—shielding the Trump administration from lower-court injunctions—is so glaringly obvious.
Turley has criticized liberal lower courts for issuing injunctions, claiming they overreach. However, he supports the Supreme Court’s use of the shadow docket to lift those injunctions, even when the administration fails to prove “irreparable harm.” Justice Sotomayor recently noted that the Court has changed its paradigm to automatically assume the government is harmed if it cannot immediately implement a policy.
So the “decisions” a handful of district court judges carefully shopped should stand for years going through the normal appellate process? This is sometimes known as the process is the punishment.
The Administration should build a case, not fire a howitzer. The Administration never suffers, cannot suffer. The People can suffer, as the decision on the unconstitutional tariffs has turned into a massive cash transfer from the individual citizens to massive corporations has done. Trillions moved from wallets to vaults. No possible redress now.
Here, apparently, the Administration, wants to harm the People to pander to the Corporations and is demanding a lightning fast, near military legal response to mow down the People to do so.
And i bet you think the wealthy are hoarding all the money like Scrooge McDuck’s swimming pool full of cash?
Marxist much?
Did anyone actually read past the line “as Justice Jackson rightly argued….”?
Well, HB, I sort of had a petite Mal seizure after that so I can’t recall…
^^petit
You did. Maybe your overpowering need to remain ignorant intervened.
You mean the Justice Jackson who doesn’t know what a woman is? That Justice Jackson?
Geez X, ever wonder why they are called the “Supreme” Court? THAT’s our system. Which civics lessons did you get in school?
You need to spend more time thinking your ploys here before you type. You’re getting transparent with your ‘find the angle that works against this’ . you can’t just grab at the first stupid thought that floats into your head.
“… the EPA was using the ongoing litigation to force utilities to spend billions of dollars to comply with the new regulations: “In other words the absence of stay allowed the agency to effectively implement an important program we held to be contrary to law.” …”
Rephrase:
“…
the EPA(MOM) was using the ongoinglitigation(Parental Subjugation) to forceutilities(Me) to spendbillions(Hours) ofdollars(time) to comply with the newregulations(Rules of the House): “In other words the absence ofstay(Her Final Directive) allowed theagency(Queen of the Hive) to effectively implement an important program we held to becontrary to law(unfair to us Kids).” …”Home sweet Home – Does it ever end? (Way to go Leslie!)
The American Oath of Office (Article VI of the U.S. Constitution) is arguably the most powerful counter to evil and tyranny ever invented by the Framers of the Constitution.
The American Oath of Office is the best friend of Republican, Democrat and Independent voters. It’s the one thing that benefits all of us.
The American Oath of Office is totally unique in the world. Each and every foreign enemy to the USA since the 1700’s has a fundamentally different Oath of Office (supreme loyalty oath for government officials).
Germany in the 1930’s/1940’s had an Oath of Office to a single person (Hitler). Therefore treason was viewed as disloyalty to that single person. During the Cold War, our enemies swore supreme loyalty to a political party (Communist Party), there fore treason was viewed as disloyalty to the political party.
Iran, for several decades has an Oath of Office to a religious interpretation, therefore treason is defined as disloyalty to that religious interpretation.
The American Oath of Office requires (by law) that local, state and federal officials (and their private contractors/surrogates) swear supreme loyalty to a constitution that protects named (and unnamed) human rights – from gun rights to women’s rights to equal treatment under laws.
Following World War Two, American prosecutors indicting Nazi war crimes and Nazi human rights abuses (like the Holocaust against the Jewish people) created the “Nuremberg Defense Precedent”. Basically meaning a low level subordinate soldier, interrogator or prison guard couldn’t justify their wrongdoing by saying “just following orders”.
The “Nuremberg Defense Precedent” greatly empowered low level government officials to refuse illegal orders and in theory should have strengthened the American Oath of Office for American officials.
If the U.S. Supreme Court were consistent, they would support Robert Jackson’s Nuremberg precedent. Jackson’s is arguably America’s greatest expert on American constitutional law and federal law. Jackson was also a member of the U.S. Supreme Court, a federal attorney general and chief prosecutor in Germany prosecuting Nazi war criminals. Maybe this U.S. Supreme Court could learn a few things from Robert Jackson.
Fast forward to today:
The most loyal government servants place a TV ad telling American government employees that they have a duty and responsibility to refuse illegal orders from superiors disloyal to their Oath of Office. The officials featured in the ad include the most loyal CIA agents, most loyal military members, the most loyal members of Congress and even astronaut Mark Kelly. This ad supported the American Oath of Office supreme loyalty oath and supported Jackson’s Nuremberg precedent.
The Trump Department of Justice and Trump Attorney General then attempt to illegally punish the most loyal government officials in America today. And by and large, the U.S. Supreme Court has done way too little to protect the most loyal Americans serving in government to protect all of us.
Trump is on record in his own words supporting foreign style loyalty oaths, that every enemy of the USA has used since the 1700’s.
Most government leaking is a symptom of rot at the top of an organization – maybe focus on that?
Excellent disquisition, until the finale. A deliberate, outrageous lie.
If I wrote a bunch of BS like that ,I would want to be anonymous too.
The Oath of Federal officials to uphold the Constitution has *never* been adequately enforced. That began many decades before Donald Trump first drew breath. What was probably needed was public trial for violation, and a death sentence upon conviction.
“Trump is on record” oh sure it is Mr. TDS.
Wait, so why is it “utterly irrational” to prevent the EPA from gaming the system through protracted litigation?
Because the role of the EPA is to follow the laws that congress creates – not to make up its own lows.
The gaming of the system refered to is to create rules that have no foundation in the laws congress passed and then force companies to comply with new rules witout legislative foundation – or fight through the courts at great expense forever. Then if EPA thinks there is going to be an adverse SCOTUS ruling – drop the case or negotiate a settlement.
I know little about the leak – but the process by which the executive branch leverages its power to impose rules that have no baisis in the law is nothing new. Democrat and sometimes republican administrations have been doing it for a long time.
A similar approach is to litigate until a government agency cane get a consent decree.
This all sounds reasoanable – except that private settlements and public ones are radically different.
A private entitity and a government entitity can not settle a dispute with the private entity promising to change its conduct,
UNLESS that conduct is fiully stablished as actually violating REAL Law – not the executives wish regarding what the law ought to be.
A consent degree absent a court formally confirming after hearings and appeals that the government position IS supported by actual law passed by congress is
The executive violating the separation of powers and making law.
Trump should lose the Birth Right citizenship case – regardless of the meaning of the 14th amendment, the Executive does NOT get to change the law on its own.
But just as Trump must lose – so should myriads of govenrment agencies in the past.
Laws good and bad are made by congress – not agencies.
Agencies are NOT free to “game the system”
John Say, the “gaming” is actually happening in reverse: the Court is now more likely to reach down and stop an agency rule before it even goes through the full appellate process. That is what Turley wants you to ignore. That’s what SCOTUS is doing with the shadow docket rulings.
There is no law establishing birthright citizenship, and the history of the establishment of the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution makes it an open and shut case that there is no such thing as birthright citizenship for foreign invaders. Its absurd on its face to declare children of illegal aliens or tourists to be citizens of the US
Be careful , anon, it’s another trick from demons. It’s been trick after trick since the year 2000.
Illegal aliens, and the fetuses and babies inside them, are subject to the jurisdiction of their countries of origin.
Illegal aliens, and the fetuses and babies inside them, are not subject to the full jurisdiction of the U.S., merely the territorial jurisdiction for imminent legal purposes.
“Subject to the jurisdiction” requires fidelity to that jurisdiction (composed of laws). If your first approach to a jurisdiction is to break it’s laws, you are displaying your lack of being subjected to that jurisdiction AND it’s laws UNDER that jurisdiction. A law breaker is attempting or succeeding to NOT be subject to a jurisdiction’s laws. “Subjecting to the jurisdiction” is up to the individual, and no one else, and crossing our border is against that jurisdiction’s laws. SCOTUS better get this simple idea right…
Mexico considers Mexican illegal aliens and their babies, who crossed into the U.S., as subject to the full jurisdiction of Mexico upon their return, meaning they never really severed their connection to and the full jurisdiction of Mexico—a person cannot hold legiance to two lieges; illegal aliens are not subject to the full jurisdiction of the U.S.; they are subject to the full jurisdiction of Mexico. Other nations hold their citizens in that same status.
Did he “change” the law, JS? Wasn’t it a notice of definition as HS attempts to do its job for purposes of national security, other, and astutely included “permanent resident” to give argument on the Wong Ark error?
I always look forward to hearing your ideas, JS. They’re always helpful.
John, another wall of text and still missing the point.
Regulatory agencies are given broad guidelines from the Legislative and Executive branches agreeing on those as specified by law. The guidelines are necessarily broad for the simple reason that to fully define, to the last atom, often significantly complicated scientific or technology matters is beyond the ability of the House and the Senate to keep current with, particularly when the evolution of the matter is rapid.
The cure for any problem that arises in the regulatory agency is by the US Congress and the US President to craft a specific law for the specific problem. If the regulatory agency was operating outside the laws established, then it is up to the President to intercede or for Congress to act. Both branches have abdicated their responsibility to the American people, making it a Judicial branch problem. The Supreme Court should refuse to hear such cases and force the other branches to do their own jobs.
Keep in mind the Executive Branch agreed to the laws when the President signed the bill(s) that enacted the law.
Anyhow, buy a spelling checker and learn to edit for brevity.
So, if the FBI is brought in to investigate and determines that the leaker was a Supreme Court Justice, what happens then?
There is no specific statute that criminalizes unauthorized disclosure by someone with lawful access, unless the leaker did something extra, such as hacking a computer, stealing a physical document, or lying to investigators (18 U.S.C. § 1001).
Maybe it’s the recorder
Remember, federal judges are untouchable, the true “Kings” in American society.
Congress can impeach the president, a different branch, and Congress can impeach a Justice.
As long as you think about it like 3 kings but one of them is many kings adding up to one and another king is really nine kings. and all the kings must agree or no go. and kings can be ousted and voted for or against by serfs and overridden and embarrassed and cannot ‘off with your head’ , THEN with all that, sure it’s just like having a king….. you better get to a ‘no kings’ rally soon!
The other justices will be more circumspect in discussions.
“So, if the FBI is brought in to investigate and determines that the leaker was a Supreme Court Justice, what happens then?”
Most likely, a CJ with an actual spine could find a way to marginalize the offender. Of course, that would leave Roberts out, even if (as I suspect) he already knows the identity.
In my fevered dreams I see all 3 of the worthless broads resigning in disgrace offering Trump a chance to “pack the court” with patriots.
Notwithstanding significant resistance, discussions are emerging that draw indelible lines of causality from these multitudes of corruptions to the rationality and morality of our society back to its feminization.
In Ann Douglas’ 1977 book she talks about feminization creating a “sentimental” culture focused on consumerism and banal melodrama, which she believes undermined the country’s intellectual and theological foundations.” As for “Banal melodrama”, this is no longer constrained to afternoon soap operas, as one can find it acted out live on C-SPAN.
Contemporary discussions on the subject can also be found on YouTube, a good entrée to it perhaps being those that feature Helen Andrews.
The push-back to this discussion are, of course, predictable, and come primarily from feminists, CCP trolls and us men who, in good faith, keep to our masculine urge to protect women.
Yes, disappointing and embarrassing.
Women’s suffrage leads to a fertility rate in a “death spiral,” which leads to foreign invasion; look around you.
Leaks are just a sign of the the desperation from the left over our return to our constitutional roots.
Dems can’t ever play fair.
Anon, in the continued descent to the bottom since the year 2000, some on the court are mudwrestlers dressed in robes before the big event. It’s decline. It’s horrific.
Leaks are a way to enforce conformity among the majority. All of the conservatives are now on notice to not waver from the Federalist Society approved line.
Chief Pirate Roberts may be out searching for a replacement, so that he can pursue his beloved Buttercup…
Apologies to the late Rob Reiner and the cast of the Princess Bride 😏
I see Chief Roberts and think, is that Capt. Crozier? No one should have to die in peacetime.
I believe the “investigation” into the leak prior to Dobbs was NOT by the United States Marshals, but by the Marshal of the Court. That was hardly an investigation. The FBI could have investigated, conducting interviews in which lying is, itself, a federal offense. Instead, it was swept under the rug because, decorum and all that.
I am convinced that Roberts is a useless tool who is much more concerned (preoccupied, even) with his own image and popularity in DC than with SCOTUS fulfilling its Constitutional mission. It should have been fairly easy to identify the Dobbs leak. I suspect that Roberts is aware of the source, but was unwilling to diligently pursue the matter for fear it would cast SCOTUS (and therefore its Chief Justice) in an unflattering light.
Explosive Report: As Dobbs Majority Faced Death Threats, Liberal Justices Slow-Walked Release
https://thefederalist.com/2026/04/18/explosive-report-as-dobbs-majority-faced-death-threats-liberal-justices-slow-walked-release/
“When the draft of the Supreme Court ruling that would overturn Roe v. Wade leaked to the press, the conservative justices who signed on to the majority opinion suddenly wore bigger targets on their backs. The very real threat of assassination hung over them like a coming thunderstorm. And still their pro-abortion colleagues stalled the release of the official ruling for weeks, putting the justices’ lives at increased risk…”
Prof. Turley might want to look at my letter to the editor the Wall Street Journal published last year. The professor properly quotes and remembers Chief Justice Roberts’s analogy of judging to umpiring during his 2005 confirmation hearings. He said the umpire’s job “is to call balls and strikes.” What Roberts craftily left out — as my WSJ letter discerned — is that, in practice, umpires (not the Official Baseball Rules of Major League Baseball) “define the strike zone, which they can change from inning to inning, or even from batter to batter, and there’s no review. That was a pitch the senators on the committee never saw coming.” Inconstant judging and umpiring, lead to a lack of confidence in the fairness of, respectively, the law and the game. (Nathan I. Silver, “Be Wary of Judicial Umpires,” May 18, 2025)
The more frequent use of the Shadow Docket did not arise in a vacuum. It arose as an antidote to the wave of politically biased and legally dubious District Court injunctions that have been issued to obstruct Executive Department actions.
In the overall context of the last 235 years of American history, one could make a very strong argument that “Excessive Secrecy” has been the most corrosive part of American democracy.
Voters can’t properly self-govern if there is arbitrary and excessive secrecy.
Excessive Secrecy is also an “incentive” for government officials to commit fraud and crimes.
If an government official can classify secrets for 50 years or longer, they can commit almost any crime they please and the most evil part – their crime victims can call the police or FBI or the courts (or any government watchdog) for relief. These crime victims are gaslighted for 50 or more years.
After 50 years, when the real truth is exposed, Congress and the agencies simply say “those guys 50+ years ago shouldn’t have done that” – with no accountability and no real reforms.
For example: in the early 2000’s, Bush officials probably thought their actions would be secret for 50+ years when they told the entire world that they were detaining and punishing “the worst-of-the-worst”. Terrorists that were so dangerous (apparently with magical powers akin to Harry Potter) – so dangerous they couldn’t be imprisoned in domestic SuperMax prisons. Bush officials even fooled judges and U.S. Supreme Court from doing their duty of constitutional judicial review.
The U.S. Supreme Court even forgave Attorney General Ashcroft for severely abusing the federal “Material Witness Statute” (as determined by a federal appeals court). Ashcroft’s torture victims have never been made whole as of today. None were actually called as witnesses and none were protected. The whole fraud was to punish and interrogate anyone they wanted to, bypassing all constitutional due process. The U.S. Supreme Court never protected Ashcroft’s victims.
Luckily those secrets were revealed sooner than 50 years. Based on Freedom of Information Act Requests (the government’s own records):
American officials were paying money (bounties) to warlords and tribal chieftains to provide so-called “intelligence” on any suspected terrorists they were aware of. Since the bounties were so huge to poor tribal chieftains, they basically told Coalition troops of people they didn’t like (rival tribesman, adversaries, etc).
Most were never on a battlefield, never shooting at Coalition troops and many not even on the continent. So Bush officials tried to classify this huge incompetence, but secretly released about 90% of Gitmo detainees and other detainees – since they had absolutely nothing to do with any terrorism at all.
Bush officials were probably also embarrassed at their own incompetence, when 200 FBI agents threatened to resign over the Bush’s amateur-hour interrogation practices. Some FBI agents threatened to arrest the Bush interrogators.
All this is public knowledge today, but Bush officials thought they could classify their fraud, incompetence and crimes for 50 years.
Just a guess here, but in over 235 years of American history, most government leaking happens when government leaders and top management are disloyal to their Oath of Office and give illegal orders to their subordinate loyal employees. It’s usually waste, fraud and abuse from top management that results in government leaking by loyal civil servants.
The American leaders are a bit hypocritical on these issues. American prosecutors created the “Nuremberg Defense Precedent” following World War Two to punish Nazis committing human rights abuses. This Nuremberg rule also supported Article VI (Sections 1, 2, 3) of the U.S. Constitution (American officials pledge supreme loyalty in their Oath of Office to a constitution that protects human rights).
Bottom Line: Voters can’t self-govern their representatives in Congress and the White House with this type of excessive secrecy happens. Leaks usually happen when top management is disloyal to their own Oath of Office. Voters need to minimize arbitrary and excessive secrecy!
“Voters can’t self-govern their representatives in Congress and the White House with this type of excessive secrecy happens…”
I agree entirely. Yet, it then stands to reason that voters can’t self govern or hold officials accountable with excessive election “secrecy.” if citizens are subject to threats of prosecution if they complain about elections, or attempt to audit what their officials are doing, how do we not learn to distrust what has become a secret process? Let’s reduce absentee ballots to the minimum, get rid of harvesting, stop leaking early counts to aid rascals in knowing what they need to win, and decide who may cast ballots and enforce it. Let’s audit occasionally.
“if citizens are subject to threats of prosecution if they complain about elections”
They aren’t.
The trouble happens when they break into voter record storage facilities and steal records or allow 3rd parties to tamper with them or, as Fox News did, to lie and make outlandish, unsupported claims that are intended to damage the reputation of voting device makers.
At many points every election is audited before, during, and after. Both parties supply observers. There is nothing hidden about it.
I thought April fools was over with?
_________________________
Christiane Amanpour, a CNN “reporter” claimed on X that her “dog tag” during the Gulf War in 1991 had the “rank of Major” on it. In point of fact, it had to be her press pass, not an actual US Military dog tag. Military dog tags never include the rank of those who wear them. Either she is lying and it’s stolen valor or she’s so mistaken as to be an embarrassment to the already embarrassed CNN.
Sure like to she her DD-214.
Cue Helen Andrews…
“Christiane Amanpour, a CNN “reporter” claimed on X that her “dog tag” during the Gulf War in 1991 had the “rank of Major” on it. ”
The only tag with “Major” on it that Amanapour would be entitled to wear would follow that term with “F*** Up”…
Chrissy is a direct and mortal enemy of the American thesis of freedom and self-reliance, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, actual Americans, and America.
Chrissy must be prosecuted for treason and/or deported with extreme prejudice.
“And finally an observation: the current Secretary of War, f/k/a Defence, left the military with the rank of Major. I recall my dogtag in the first Gulf war had the rank of major… the very same rank. Just sayin’!”
Don’t get your panties in a bunch Dustoff, she’s just using the Trump method of telling a joke to get you wound up.