By Kody Fairfield

For weeks now, whistle blower publication site Wikileaks has been releasing some pretty damning emails pertaining to the Democratic Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and the deceit from within her campaign. These emails, from the server of campaign chairman John Podesta, contained everything from bad mouthing former Democratic rival, Bernie Sanders, to once hidden transcripts of Clinton’s paid speeches to Wall Street where she was a bit more honest about her political ambitions.

In a newer revelation however, it appears that in 2015, 3 years after the 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) to allow the mandate in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to stand as a “tax,” thanks to a last minute switch of opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, may have been caused by strong arm Tammany Hall style tactics from the White House. In an email to Clinton aide Jake Sullivan and Director of Communications Jennifer Palmieri, and Podesta himself, the CEO of the liberal Center for American Progress, Neera Tanden, a Clinton ally, spoke about the “critical” part the pressure placed on Roberts played in his change of opinion.

“It is most likely that this decision has already been made by the Court, but on the off chance that history is repeating itself, then it’s possible they are still deciding (last time, seems like Roberts went from striking the mandate to supporting it in the weeks before). As Jennifer will remember, it was pretty critical that the President threw the gauntlet down last time on the Court, warning them in the first case that it would politicize the role of the Court for them to rule against the ACA. As a close reader of the case, I honestly believe that was vital to scaring Roberts off.”

As The Daily Wire reported, there were some who already believed that Roberts may have been influenced by the President and even the media, Jan Roberts of CBS News mentioned,

“…as Roberts began to craft the decision striking down the mandate, the external pressure began to grow. Roberts almost certainly was aware of it…As chief justice, he is keenly aware of his leadership role on the court, and he also is sensitive to how the court is perceived by the public…There were countless news articles in May warning of damage to the court–and to Roberts’ reputation–if the court were to strike down the mandate.”

With all of the information coming from Wikileaks regarding the tactics used by the Clinton campaign, including people with vast ties to the White House, it not a large stretch to wonder if the political machines would try such a thing. After all, in 2012, President Barack Obama did release a scathing statement regarding the ACA, specifically targeting the more conservative justices on the SCOTUS saying,

“For years, what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or the lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, there’s a good example, and I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that, and not take that step.”

Roberts did release his own statements which tried to shed a bit of light on the ruling saying, “We don’t work as Democrats or Republicans, and I think it’s a very unfortunate impression the public might get from the confirmation process.” His statement does however, leave some room to question whether or not his need to appear apolitical, on top of the pressure from larger entities could’ve influenced his opinion. A situation, which is at least assumed to be the truth by Neera Tanden.

In fact, Tanden saw the tactics as being so critical that when King V. Burwell, the second ruling on the ACA made by the SCOTUS was being decided, she wished to apply similar tactics to Roberts again,

“In this case, I’m not arguing that Hillary spend a lot of time attacking the Court. I do think it would be very helpful to all of our interest in a decision affirming the law, for Roberts and perhaps Kennedy to see negative political consequences to ruling against the government. Therefore, I think it would be helpful to have a story of how progressives and Hillary would make the Supreme Court an election issue (which would be a ready argument for liberals) if the Court rules against the government. It’s not that you wish that happens. But that would be the necessary consequence of a negative decision…the Court itself would become a hugely important political issue.”

As reported by The Daily Wire, Sullivan had replied to Tandem saying, “”I’m into it but defer to Jen [Palmieri] on this one.” Jennifer Palmieri responded, saying: “She has already been making this an issue. Not sure how in depth you are suggesting but seems like this should be manageable.”

Palmieri then added Clinton press secretary, Brian Fallon, to the conversation. Fallon shot back: “Neera, I can give folks the nod if you want to direct whoever you guys pitch to me.”

In the end, Roberts again sided with the liberal justices of the court, and while there is no way to know what was in the Chief Justice’s heart at the time, the tactics spoken about and the constant scandal leaking from the pores of the Clinton campaign and others closely connected to them are making it harder and harder to believe that it is all just coincidence, and not tactics of a larger political machine.