How Small of a Man is CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin? This is Unreal.

Hearing CNN's Chief Legal Analyst lament the possibility of Roe being overturned just felt gross. And here's why it did.

As much as I was enjoying watching the spectacle of left-wing intellectuals hyperventilate over the news of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement, I’m glad someone said what needed to be said to CNN’s senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin.

After all, it’s one thing to see interest groups like Planned Parenthood and NARAL go apoplectic, the latter proclaiming the thought that the Supreme Court might return a non-federal issue to its constitutional place (the states) a, “moment of deep crisis.” Or even watching professional lobbyists like pro-abortion EMILY’s List fret that, “our reproductive rights are at risk” conjures up amusing thoughts of Justice Roberts issuing judicially approved lists of who can and can’t reproduce.

And when it comes to media, who can’t enjoy the always comical Chris Matthews of MSNBC who threatened that there would be “Hell to pay” if Democrats allowed the Senate to approve another Trump appointee, even though they can do precious nothing to stop it even if they wanted to. His MSNBC colleague Al Sharpton was more distraught than angry, ominously warning that, “All civil and human rights are at stake.” All of them. Justice Kennedy was all that stood between us and the Purge. Meanwhile, ThinkProgress “Justice Editor” (whatever that means) Ian Millhiser offered a totally sane, completely well-adjusted, mentally-balanced response: “F***. You. Justice. Kennedy.”

The meltdowns were all entertaining, but when it came to CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin, something just didn’t sit right. Obviously Toobin has an exemplary record for progressive bias, and no one with a rational mind would assume they would be getting fair or dispassionate coverage from him. But when I read his freak-out that, “abortion will be illegal in twenty states in 18 months,” it felt gross. Why?

Because Toobin’s personal past with the heinous practice of child-sacrifice-for-convenience has become well-known in recent years. The New York Times detailed the sad tale of Toobin’s marital infidelity, noting his decade long affair with an attorney named Casey Greenfield, a relationship that led to a love child named Rory. Toobin tried to hide his sins, first by ignoring Greenfield, then refusing to take a paternity test, then lawyering up and fighting child support. And worst of all, the New York Daily News reported that he tried to give her money for an abortion. Abortion as birth control. Kill an innocent child to hide embarrassing information that might damage my career or reputation.

Here's the NY Daily News:

In 2008, when Greenfield became pregnant, and when she told Toobin the news, he offered her “money if she’d have an abortion,” says a source. He also allegedly offered to pay for her to have another child later via a sperm donor…

“When Casey wouldn’t have an abortion, Jeff told her she was going to regret it, that she shouldn’t expect any help from him,” claims another source.

So it’s actually worse. He took a vulnerable woman that he had been mistreating and lying to for a decade, got her pregnant, turned his back on her when she refused an abortion, then tried to manipulate and threaten her into having that abortion. And this is the man who wants to lament that the legal apparatus that allowed him to emotionally abuse his mistress and almost kill his own child might be dismantled? Good grief what a small man.

That’s why I was thankful to see that someone with a significant national following called him out. Hats off to the Weekly Standard’s Mark Hemingway for this magnificent tweet:

“To recap: A journalist who cheated on his wife, knocked-up a colleague’s daughter, wanted her to get an abortion, and had to be dragged into court to pay child support is on CNN right now opining about the consequences of overturning Roe v. Wade. Maybe sit this one out?”


No. 1-24

@Jules - You are correct. Abortion and even the right to privacy are not explicitly called out in the Constitution. Can we discuss emoluments now? They are mentioned in the Constitution.


Welcome, fellow Russkies! The samovar is hot, the tea is fresh, and the blinis so thin you can read Cyrillic right through them! Life is good in the forums, da?

OK, so the tinfoil hats slipped, and the Russian meme penetrated a couple of skulls to the point where these guys are seeing Russians behind every tree.

I am not as wound up as @russedav ----I'm not even sure what he is wound up ABOUT. I think he doesn't like Kennedy. But.....the simple fact is, Roe v Wade is not about abortion. Abortion is the vehicle Roe v Wade rode into battle with the Constitution, and the Constitution lost. It is not connected in any way with anything in the Constitution, yet was ruled a Constitutional right. The ruling even admitted as much, admitting that it was based on the "emanation" of an imagined "penumbra" of an unstated right to a vague and highly personal sense of privacy---it's hard to imagine anything more vague than that------and then distorted even farther by expanding this new "right to privacy" to be something that exists "between a woman and her doctor".

Even many people who think abortion is just fine and should be legal agree it is simply bad law.

Kind of interesting, ain't it, to have support for the United States Constitution identified as a characteristic of a Russian?

@russedav Like anyone is going to listen to "russian dave". HA! Take your trash back to Moscow you cuck.


BenjaminD's deranged delusion that Blackmun's "Roe/Doe" vile, lawless, fascist "raw judicial power" grab insanity fantasy is somehow equal to 2nd Amendment reality is incredible, typical for the treason of wanting our land run by lawless, black-robed fascist bigotry like Kennedy's. Ironic that the blind bigotry of Kennedy himself has said we shouldn't have our important social matters decided by unelected judges, so of course his gross hypocrisy in the matter is the worst example of it.


talk about war on woman