Ingraham: I believe the goal of this leak was to 'terrorize'

3 mins read


NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Laura Ingraham discussed how the objective of the leaked Supreme Court draft on abortion was to terrorize Friday on “The Ingraham Angle.”

LAURA INGRAHAM: Of course, the criticisms of the opinion are dishonest, constitutionally and fraudulent factually. The abortion issue is merely returned to the states. We talked about this over the last few nights and that is where the voters of those states will then determine the outcome for abortion. It might be regulated, it might be outlawed, it might be allowed in certain cases or in the first trimester, it might be banned. So it’s not going to be a onesize-fits-all coast-tocoast. 


But the Left doesn’t want the voters to have a say, and they don’t care about facts or principles. For them, that leak of the draft opinion itself, orchestrated and disseminated as it was. It’s meant to terrorize, not to influence. Think about this. Why would someone leak what was a three-month-old draft opinion that was already in some form or another form coming out probably in June anyway. And tonight, though, given everything I’ve seen, everything I know about the court and its inner workings from the time I clerked, I’m going to say that I believe this leak was done with the goal of stoking violence against the conservative justices, primarily on the court. In other words, the goal to force a change in the court’s makeup before the November election. 

A pro-choice march in Washington, DC, 4th May 1992. One protestor carries a placard which reads'My Mind, My Body, My Choice'. (Photo by Alfred Gescheidt/Getty Images)

A pro-choice march in Washington, DC, 4th May 1992. One protestor carries a placard which reads ‘My Mind, My Body, My Choice’. (Photo by Alfred Gescheidt/Getty Images)

Sounds nefarious. I know it sounds like a totally horrifying prospect. But those who believe that dismembering third-trimester babies is somehow a sacred right protected in the Constitution. Could those people very well be capable of rationalizing other insidious acts? Now, why aren’t politicians in both parties speaking out against what is an obvious effort to interfere with or intimidate the judicial process? 



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Latest from Blog