John Roberts wasn’t in a closed room screaming about riots in the street


Texas congressman Matt Patrick told the Texas legislature this week that the reason for not allowing the Texas election challenge to take place was that Chief Justice Roberts was worried about riots in the streets if the court heard the Texas arguments and evidence.

A spokesperson for the U.S. Supreme Court responded

As guidance, the court “has been conducting its conferences remotely by phone since March when the building closed due to the pandemic,” a Supreme Court spokesperson told The Epoch Times via email on Friday in response to a question about the claim.

There was no denial of the comments, just the conference in a closed room. But there’s no evidence he made those comments either.

The claim about the closed room, screaming, and fear of riots, also appeared on Hal Turner’s website, sourcing an alleged “clerk for one of the [Supreme Court] justices.” It is unclear where Patrick obtained his information.

“The Justices met in a closed and sealed room, as is standard,” Turner’s website said. He cited the alleged Supreme Court whistleblower. “Usually, it is very calm. However, today, we could hear screaming all the way down the hall. They met in person because they didn’t trust the telephonic meeting as secure. Chief Justice Roberts was screaming, ‘Are you going to be responsible for the rioting if we hear this case?’”

On Dec. 11, the court dismissed the lawsuit—filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton against Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania—due to a lack of standing. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said they would have taken up the case.


Attorney Lin Wood wrote on Twitter this week that Roberts and Justice Stephen Breyer in August discussed how to make sure that Trump “would never be reelected” over the phone.

Wood wouldn’t share the evidence, however, stating, “At this time, I cannot. People are worried about their safety.”



  1. In an earlier post David S.Kelly concluded there are only Patriots and Traitors in the US now. Roberts is clearly one of the traitors. In fact, he is a trojan horse, a very dangerous traitor.

  2. I am tired of this cowardly BS. Everybody (Roberts, per se—should resign) is worried about their safety….treasonous fools and cowards. All the while, out here in real America, the People and their Republic are dying a slow death.

  3. OK. So why did Roberts not take a case which so clearly and constututionally required SCOTUS review? “Individual Mandate” Roberts is dodging the question but, more importantly, his unambiguous Art III duty. His dismissiveness ends any hope for a peaceful resolution of the electoral coup d’etat crisis.

  4. I find it amusing that every time Roberts proves he’s a Leftist shill we act like it’s a huge revelation. This IS Roberts. He’s a proven Leftist and he’s not going anywhere. Can’t we stop clutching our pearls?

  5. Direct evidence in the form of witness testimony isn’t the most reliable evidence, you have to test it on cross exam. People get the story wrong, and that includes the police investigator.

    This doesn’t completely invalidate the story. Video conferencing doesn’t preclude a shouting match, Obviously, the information about the justices entering one room was wrong, but we don’t know how the source presented the information about the room. It could have been an offhand assumption on his part, or confusion in communication with a sub-source or a reporter. Identifying the part of the story is wrong that is a tool to get at the truth, but it doesn’t settle the matter.

  6. Based on a true story, but names changed to protect the “ innocent.” Intern = ACB. Spokesperson = CJR. We got the truth the only way they could give it to us. Not debunked. Keep MAX PRESSURE on Roberts. Don’t allow him to insulate. It is having an effect.

  7. The bestest government evarz has particle board walls at the SCOTUS digs?
    Or did some foreign “intelligence agencies” come up with this one?
    Roberts was probably busy adjusting his clown wig and honking bicycle horns to throw off the listening devices.

  8. I wouldn’t trust anything written by Andrew Feinberg. Look at his Twitter comments, he’s another hack in the mold of Maggie Haberman. Patrick referred to the source of the comment as a “staffer,” not a clerk. We still need further verification as to whether they met in person or not. Regardless, the Court took a cowardly and preposterous route to avoid the case, and whether zoomed or shouted in person, it sounds like Roberts, who has been in Obama’s pocket since the Obamacare farce.

Leave a Reply