The Supreme Court has investigated the Roe v Wade leak, and it announced earlier this week that it was not able to identify the person (or people) responsible. But that’s an outcome Pat and Stu have a hard time believing. So, they provide their own theory as to who MAY have been involved (purely spectacle!). No matter who was responsible, do YOU believe the Supreme Court has no idea who was behind this all?!
TranscriptBelow is a rush transcript that may contain errors
PAT: So the investigation into who leaked the information on the Roe v. Wade decision.
Who leaked that?
They've investigated it, and could not figure it out. I can't believe it. I can't believe that's what they came back with.
STU: That's incredible.
PAT: It is -- can it really be that hard to figure it out?
STU: I mean, just think about this for a second?
How does this document, get into the hands. Was it political that actually printed it?
How does it get into their hands. It wasn't like a reprint, where someone typed it all out.
Like, for example, you're in front of the computer. You see it there. You're some staffer. You take photos of the computer screen. They can see the text.
This was the actual document.
PAT: Yeah. Yeah.
STU: So this document must have been either pulled off a drive. Sent by email or some other form.
Or printed out. And a physical copy removed from the Supreme Court offices. That's pretty much it.
PAT: Either way.
STU: Or a hack. Which is, they did not completely rule that out. But they did not see any evidence of a hack.
PAT: So which ever method they used, there's going to be traces left behind that you can track. So how did they not track it back to the person who did it? Incredible.
STU: I would think so. Now, maybe they were so loose with this stuff, that, you know, a bunch of different people had copies of the document. And one of them brought it home and made a photocopy, and that was it. You know, it's possible. But if so, that's a real problem, with security in the Supreme Court.
I mean, I --
PAT: No kidding.
STU: Again, I'm just flabbergasted how this is all available. It should not be possible to do. Any digital way would be traced, you would think. If you're on the system of the Supreme Court, you have this document. Unless they're just emailing it around to a million different people. How could this get out?
And then the fact that they can't come up with anything. No -- no leads. Nothing. No information.
STU: They really came up with a giant zilch.
PAT: After almost a year of not knowing who this is. What happened. And everybody is waiting, kind of with bated breath, to find out.
Okay. When are we --
STU: Almost immediately.
PAT: Yeah. Before the actual decision came out. Before they officially released it. I thought, they will find this person. And we will know soon. And we still don't. What was it? March? March when that happened?
Or May. It was either March or May.
And hard to believe, that here we are, going into February.
Yeah. We investigated, couldn't find anything. Huh.
STU: So let me ask you an important question. Are we there?
Are we at the point, where we could get to start to wildly speculate with conspiracy theories? Can I do it? Is it okay? Is the okay time?
PAT: Yes. So do you have a wild conspiracy theory?
STU: I do have one. Would you like to hear it?
PAT: Okay. I would love to hear it.
STU: Okay. If let's say, not an aide, not an intern, not a -- just somebody who -- the janitor, who works Supreme Court. If it wasn't one of those people. And let's just say, it was an actual Supreme Court justice who just emailed it out of their account to somebody. To Politico, directly.
And let us just -- just for speculation here, since that's what we're doing.
Let's say that person's name was Sonia Sotomayor. Let's just say.
PAT: Okay. You're just picking a name out of the nine.
STU: A name. I could have said John Smith, but Sonia Sotomayor.
PAT: But you didn't. And John Smith isn't a Supreme Court justice, so that wouldn't have made sense.
STU: It wouldn't have made sense. But I just came up with the first name that popped into my head.
PAT: Okay. That was the one. Not Clarence Thomas.
PAT: Not --
STU: No. Sonia Sotomayor. That's the name that fits this particularly wild example.
PAT: Not John Roberts. Okay.
STU: Let's say Sonia Sotomayor emailed from her Gmail, to Politico, and they just put it in their publication.
And after this investigation, that's exactly what they found.
Let's just say that happened.
STU: This would be incredibly damaging to the Supreme Court.
PAT: Yeah. Wouldn't it?
STU: Because it's not just some aid trying to get attention.
Or trying -- this is some -- the reveal of such pathetic and blatant ideology, that the person who would do such a thing should not even be on the Supreme Court in the first place.
PAT: Should be impeached from the US Supreme Court. Yes.
STU: And I think, let's just say you had an institutionalist, like John Roberts. We'll call -- again, making up names. A John Roberts.
PAT: And it just so happened, that a John Roberts, happens to be the -- the chief justice of the US Supreme Court.
STU: Are you serious? I didn't know that.
PAT: So it's weird that you picked that name.
STU: I don't follow it. So let's just say, that when the investigation came back. The person who -- maybe was in charge.
John Roberts says, this would do too much damage to the court. We need to just throw this in the trash.
STU: I'm not saying, that that happened.
Because as I said, we are in a complete speculation period here. We're just making up conspiracy theories.
And to be true about it, I don't have evidence that this occurred. I want to make sure --
PAT: No. There is speculation around those lines.
STU: There is speculation around those lines. And I do not find it completely implausible, that that's what happened.
PAT: I don't find it at all implausible. It's more plausible than, yeah. We just -- we couldn't find anything. We couldn't find anybody. I don't know what happened. It's more plausible than that.
STU: It really is.
You know, from the beginning, I -- I was -- very, very suspicious of Sotomayor and her aides right off the bat. You know, she's, again, in the a different category than other liberal justices. She is an idiot.
STU: She is not -- she is not the same -- she's not in the same universe, as Elena Kagan, who is very liberal, but very smart.
STU: You know, this is --
PAT: And Kagan has made some rulings or been part of rulings, that have really surprised me, a couple of times.
But that almost happens, with the liberals in the court.
STU: Totally. That's exactly what this situation is.
She's an embarrassment.
She really is. She's an embarrassment to the court. Sotomayor. Not Kagan. Again, is liberal.
But respectfully. You can respect Elena Kagan and have some credibility.
You can't do that with Sonia Sotomayor. She's terrible. She's your run-of-the-mill, boilerplate, Huffington Post editor that's working on the Supreme Court.
She is just -- that's who she is. And, you know, it's -- it's embarrassing. It's embarrassing.
And so it fits exactly with what you would think Sotomayor would do in this situation. Having no respect for the institution. Just a liberal activist, who found herself in a lifetime appointment, in a job, she should not have.
That's who Sonia Sotomayor is. I don't know if Ketanji Brown Jackson is that. I don't think she is. I don't know that she's maybe as talented or intellectual as Elena Kagan.
But she seems to be smarter than Sonia Sotomayor by, you know, leaps and bounds. Again, Sonia Sotomayor is special. And she is unique.
PAT: In her terribleness? She's special in her terribleness.
STU: Yes. She is unique. She's not the normal liberal judge. You can't just put them all together. She is different.
And I don't know. Speculating on her bending the rules, I don't think is crazy. Speculating on her thinking in her head, oh, well, this cause is too important. I must do something. Blah, blah.
She's an activist. That's who she is. And so I -- I don't think any of that is without -- without reason. It's not wild speculation from the point of, there's no reason to believe it. Like, if you were to say. There are some people saying, I think it was Alito. Why the hell would Alito do this?
This makes no sense. Why the hell would Samuel Alito ruin his own ruling? It doesn't make any sense at all. They keep trying to come up with justifications why a conservative would do this. And no one should do it.
If a conservative did do it, first of all, it's a really dumb move, because you put the entire thing at risk. Okay. If that happened, those people should be punished as well.
I just -- again, it's complete speculation. But Sonia Sotomayor, probably just emailed this to politico.
PAT: I wouldn't be surprised.
STU: It's one of those theories, I would not be surprised by at all.
PAT: Yeah. It definitely could have happened.
But the official ruling, yeah. We can't find anybody who did this. So hmm. Okay. That's really weird that there was no trace.
PAT: Someone really good did this.
STU: I keep coming back to this, Pat. No one relates to this more than you. Every time Pat Gray rolls through a stop sign, there is a cop there to catch him doing it. Right?
PAT: Yes. Yes.
STU: Right? This is what's happened. Pat has been pulled over 16 times.
PAT: Just since we've been back here in Texas, just in Dallas. Yeah. Uh-huh. Sixteen times.
STU: And honestly, your pace has slowed at the beginning. It was like eight times in the first year. It was really a lot.
PAT: I think it literally right around there. It really was.
STU: It's incredible.
But that's what happens in my life. If I mess something up, if I speed, if I roll through a stoplight.
PAT: You get caught.
STU: One day, Pat. I was coming back from a dinner. You know, it was relatively late at night on a Friday night.
Came back home. Streets are empty. Not a lot of people are around.
Pull up to a light. Now, do I roll through it a little bit while I'm taking my right?
Yeah. Probably. Maybe a little bit. And the reason I know that is because about a week later, I got a picture from the police officer in the mail, that said, you blew through this light. And then it linked -- this is real. Linked to a video of me rolling through a stop sign, taking a right on red, with no one around.
PAT: Yeah. We stopped that in Texas, by the way, which is awesome.
STU: Oh, they did stop that?
PAT: Yeah. They don't use the red light -- they don't use the cameras at the lights anymore.
STU: Good. No wonder I haven't been getting tickets lately. I didn't know that.
PAT: Yeah. So you don't have to worry about that anymore.
STU: But if I can get caught doing that, number one, how does no one find out this ruling? And number two, how does Hunter Biden get away with having sex with 900 prostitutes while doing crack on camera. How do these things happen?
PAT: Right. And how does Joe Biden get away with saying, I've never talked to anybody about business with Hunter, including -- I've never talked to Hunter about his businesses.
I don't even know what he did. I don't know what he does. How does he make a living?
I don't know. And now even CNN is admitting, yeah, he -- he had meetings with -- with business associates of Hunter Biden.
Well, thank you, finally, for verifying that.
Because we've been saying that for several years now. Really amazing.
STU: Do we have that report, Sara? We played it in the four-minute buzz. And, yes, they did say that. But I was actually impressed by CNN, for going into some depth on this. You know --
PAT: Kind of amazing.
STU: There is a change at some level at CNN. We can maybe taken this a little bit today.
Something is going on there. I think they're actually trying to be better. Which is a big statement, from me. And for --
PAT: What's the name -- is it Chris Lick? Did he -- he said from the beginning, he was going to try to make changes because he didn't like the bias. And he was going to get rid of the bias.
STU: Yes. And, of course, we all looked at him and said, we don't believe you.