Witness claims he heard Chief Justice screaming he didn't want to hear Texas lawsuit for fear of riots

In the vid below a man who seems to be testifying in what seems to be a hearing of some sort says "a staffer for one of the justices at the Supreme Court" was at the court when the "justices" were discusing whether to hear Texas's lawsuit against four swing states for election fraud.  The "justices" had retired to an adjacent room to discuss that question.

The man testifying says the "staffer" told him he heard screaming from that room, and that he heard Chief Justice Roberts screaming "I don't give a [expletive] about Bush v. Gore.  I don't want to hear about it...at that time we didn't have riots!"

Obviously we don't know if this is true.  Several commenters have noted that it can't be, because the court has been meeting virtually for months.  Seems that even if the justices HAD been doing everything on-line, the importance of this decision could have persuaded them to discuss this hugely important question in person, but it seems this could be confirmed either way.  But if the claim is accurate, it would explain the huge mystery of why the Court refused to take the case, and to hear the evidence of fraud presented in open court.

The only reason the court gave was "lack of standing."  This means the plaintiff wasn't harmed by the acts of any of the defendants.  But since a majority of Texans voted for Trump, obviously the state has the right to sue on behalf of those of its citizens who were harmed by the alleged fraud.  So "lack of standing" is bullshit, an excuse.

When one state sues another, the Supreme Court has "original jurisdiction," meaning the case properly goes straight to that court without having to be filed and heard in any lower court.  So the liberals on the court couldn't reasonably, legally refuse to hear the case on the grounds that Texas's suit claiming election fraud was in the wrong court--as several lower courts have ruled in other cases claiming election fraud.

Second: The liberal justices couldn't reasonably, legally refuse to take the case on the grounds that the case had already been heard and decided by any lower court, since no court in the entire country has ever heard the evidence in court.  Rather, in every case so far, both state and federal judges have refused to hear every case, on "procedural grounds."

Third:  Unless the liberal judges claimed election fraud isn't important, they couldn't reasonably, legally refuse to hear the case on the grounds that Texas's suit was frivolous or not important enough to be heard.

Those three excuses pretty well exhaust the LEGAL grounds for the court's refusal to hear the case.  Yet seven of the nine "justices" refused, despite there being no LEGAL basis for refusing.  So the next logical question is, on what grounds did they refuse.

Fear of riots by the usual Democrat-supporting mob would be A reason.  It would not be legally supportable, of course, but at least it would explain what is otherwise a huge mystery.

Video here.  https://twitter.com/i/status/1339641451215544322 

Frankly I doubt this claim is true, but it would explain the court's refusal to hear the case on the bullshit claim that Texas "lacked standing" to sue.