On Dec. 12, a claim appeared on radio show host Hal Turner’s website that an anonymous clerk for one of the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States came forward to blow the whistle on the conduct of Chief Justice John Roberts when the nine justices allegedly met in person to discuss whether to take the Texas v Pennsylvania case.
The case, filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, was dismissed 7-2, citing a lack of standing by Texas to intervene in how another state runs its elections. Justices Thomas and Alito were the only dissenters, saying that the Court had an obligation to at least hear the case.
The accounts of the events were repeated on Twitter when C-Span Communication Director Howard Mortman posted a clip of a C-Span broadcast during the Electoral College vote where Matt Patrick, a Texas presidential elector, criticized what he called the Supreme Court’s “moral cowardice.”
The Supreme Court, which was closed that day, has denied the veracity of Patrick’s statements.
Patrick said: “I’ll just describe the report to you that I read and you can make of it what you will,” saying it was “written by a current staffer for one of the Supreme Court Justices.”
“The Justices, as they always do, went into a closed room to discuss cases they’re taking… there’s no phones, no computers, no nothing. No one else is in the room except for the nine Justices. It’s typically very civil. They usually don’t hear any sound, they just debate what they’re doing.”
‘At that time, we didn’t have riots’
“But when the Texas case was brought up, he heard screaming through the walls as Justice Roberts and the other liberal Justices were insisting that this case not be taken up.”
Patrick said that, according to the report he read, the issue Chief Justice Roberts used to admonish his eight peers against even hearing the landmark case was fear of more rioting in America’s cities.
“The words that were heard through the wall when Justice Thomas and Justice Alito were citing Bush v Gore from John Roberts were ‘I don’t give a **** about that case. I don’t want to hear about it. At that time, we didn’t have riots.’”
Organized rioting masquerading as protests plagued several major American cities for months in the run up to the Nov. 3 election as groups with heavy Marxist revolutionary backgrounds and ties to communist organizations such as Antifa and Black Lives Matter (BLM) used the killing of George Floyd and virtually any other opportunity that fit the leftist, “politically correct” narrative to burn cities, destroy property, and terrorize private citizens.
Both police and state and municipal officials in many areas refused to take action against Antifa and BLM, despite tens of millions of dollars in property damage being inflicted. Many officials all the way up to the levels of mayor and governor even publicly opposed and rejected the assistance of federal officers and the National Guard to restore order in their states and cities.
Patrick continued: “So what he was saying is that he was afraid of what would happen if they did the right thing. And I’m sorry, but that is moral cowardice.
“We in the SREC [State Republican Electoral College], I’m an SREC member, we put those words in very specifically because the charge of the Supreme Court is to ultimately be our final arbitrator, our final line of defense, for right and wrong [Patrick’s emphasis].”
“And they did not do their duty,” he concluded.
On Dec. 17, attorney Lin Wood, who has filed several independent cases alleging widespread election fraud in swing states that he claims changed an organic Donald Trump win into a manipulated win for head of the scandal-plagued Biden family, Joe Biden posted on Twitter that Roberts discussed with Justice Stephen Breyer in August of 2019 “How to work to get Trump voted out.”
“In phone conversation in 8/19, Justice John Roberts stated that he would make sure ‘the mother f#*ker would never be re-elected.’”
The Epoch Times asked Wood to share his information on this alleged statement, but Lin replied: “At this time, I cannot. People are worried about their safety.”
The allegations of Chief Justice Roberts’s conduct are, however, only hearsay. Many critics of the account point to the fact that according to the Supreme Court’s website, the Justices have not met in person for several months as a result of lockdown measures in response to the novel coronavirus pandemic.
“The Court will hear all oral arguments scheduled for the November and December sessions by telephone conference. In keeping with public health guidance in response to COVID-19, the Justices and counsel will all participate remotely,” says the high Court’s website.
A Supreme Court spokesperson also corroborated this position in an email response to Epoch Times on Friday saying that the Court has “been conducting its conferences remotely by phone since March when the building closed due to the pandemic.”
The other SREC Texas elector, Jim Pickle, dissented from his fellow Republican elector’s view: “Nobody knows what happened in that conference room on purpose. Hearing yelling, the triple hearsay, quadruple hearsay now, about what is going on in that room, you cannot make your decision on that basis,” he said.
Follow us on Twitter or subscribe to our email list