Search for Supreme Court leaker falls to former Army colonel

[Elderberry]

Navy Times by Jessica Gresko, The Associated Press 5/24/2022

When Gail Curley began her job as marshal of the U.S. Supreme Court less than a year ago, she would have expected to work mostly behind the scenes: overseeing the court’s police force and the operations of the marble-columned building where the justices work.

Her most public role was supposed to be in the courtroom, where the marshal bangs a gavel and announces the entrance of the court’s nine justices. Her brief script includes “Oyez! Oyez! Oyez!” — meaning “hear ye” — and concludes, “God save the United States and this Honorable Court.”

Earlier this month, however, Curley was handed a bombshell of an assignment, overseeing an unprecedented breach of Supreme Court secrecy, the leak of a draft opinion and apparent votes in a major abortion case. Leaks to Politico suggest that the court seems ready to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that women have a constitutional right to abortion. That has sparked protests and round-the-clock security at justices’ homes,demonstrations at the court and concerns about violence following the court’s ultimate decision.

People who know Curley described the former Army colonel and military lawyer as possessing the right temperament for a highly charged leak investigation: smart, private, apolitical and unlikely to be intimidated.

“I’m confident that if the truth can be found out here, she’ll find it out and present it in an unbiased manner,” said retired Army Brig. Gen. Patrick Huston, her direct supervisor at the Pentagon in her last military job before the Supreme Court. Huston said he was incredibly impressed by Curley and that she had a tremendous reputation as a leader, but even as her boss of two years he didn’t know if she had a spouse or children.

Through a court spokeswoman, Curley declined an interview request.

She is the court’s 11th marshal and the second woman to hold the post. She is also in some ways constrained in her investigation by her position, which was created just after the Civil War, in 1867.

Experts say leaking the draft opinion likely wasn’t a crime, and Curley’s investigative tools are limited. She could theoretically hire an outside law firm to assist, and in other judicial records cases the FBI has been called in. But it isn’t clear if she or others have the power to issue subpoenas to get material from journalists or the fewer than 100 people in the court — including justices — with access to a draft opinion.

More: https://www.navytimes.com/news/2022/05/24/search-for-supreme-court-leaker-falls-to-former-army-colonel/

[Cyber Liberty]

Thus setting up the "Nobody need ever know" dodge by the gummint to protect the far leftists.  "Leaking the document wasn't 'illegal'!"

[sneakypete]

Experts say leaking the draft opinion likely wasn’t a crime,

@Elderberry

Maybe not,but I would be willing to bet my house that there WERE crimes committed in relation to that leak.

I,for one,am happy they picked a woman with a military background instead of a male. The left is going to have spasms trying to figure out how to attack her competence BECAUSE she is a woman,and then get away with it.

AND.......,I am fully confident that there WERE federal laws broken.

I wouldn't bet a wad of spit that the Top Dog responsible for this will ever get charged,never mind convicted,though. It will be a leftist SC Justice,and the left will go even further insane to defend him or her while trying to not look partisan or anti-women.

Chances are what will happen is some young law clerk will be charged with stealing that info and releasing it,and even if convicted and sent to prison,within a year he or she will be out,their right to practice law will be restored,and they will be hired by a DC mega-firm with Dim connections.

Still,that is better than nothing,and a HUGE leap forward compared to what we are used to seeing.

[Free Vulcan]

C'mon people, we know that Trump and DeSantis conspired to do this. We don't need evidence.

[GtHawk]

Thus setting up the "Nobody need ever know" dodge by the gummint to protect the far leftists.  "Leaking the document wasn't 'illegal'!"

Why is it that I have no doubt that among all the papers signed by employees of the court there are some with criminal penalties for disclosures of this nature and thus 'a crime'. Am I believe that there are less stringent rules and penalties for the Supreme Court than for say a large law firm?

[Cyber Liberty]

Why is it that I have no doubt that among all the papers signed by employees of the court there are some with criminal penalties for disclosures of this nature and thus 'a crime'. Am I believe that there are less stringent rules and penalties for the Supreme Court than for say a large law firm?

Well, it's incorrect as all get-out for a writer to say it wasn't "strictly illegal" when it's pretty obvious it had to be.

[DefiantMassRINO]

"Experts" have been known to be wrong.

It may be illegal.

It may be a HR policy / contract / employment agreement violation and possible grounds for employee discipline, up to and including termination.

[sneakypete]

"Experts" have been known to be wrong.

It may be illegal.

It may be a HR policy / contract / employment agreement violation and possible grounds for employee discipline, up to and including termination.

@DefiantMassRINO

And wouldn't THAT "be something!"?

I doubt that has ever happened before.

[massadvj]

We have an equal chance of knowing who this leaker is as we do of knowing who leaked COVID 19.

Looking between the lines of what the justices (including Alito, Thomas and Roberts) have said in public comments, I think most of them think the leaker is none other than Sonia Sotomayor. When they say the leak has seriously damaged the relationship of trust between the justices, that suggests they think the leaker is another justice.  Sotomayor would be the obvious choice. I also think the other justices would seriously doubt a clerk would endanger his or her career to this extent. Clerks are almost always timid, smart and very ambitious.  Something like this would be a terrible career move, even given the liberal leanings of the bar.

[Kamaji]

We will never know who the leaker is, but looking between the lines of what the justices (including Alito, Thomas and Roberts) have said in public comments, I think most of them think the leaker is none other than Sonia Sotomayor. When they say the leak has seriously damaged the relationship of trust between the justices, that suggests they think the leaker is another justice.  Sotomayor would be the obvious choice. I also think the other justices would seriously doubt a clerk would endanger his or her career to this extent. Clerks are almost always timid, smart and very ambitious.  Something like this would be a terrible career move, even given the liberal leanings of the bar.

If true, then she should be impeached and removed from the Court.

[240B]

Just like the hundreds (thousands) of other known crimes committed by political insiders in Washington D.C., from Clinton, to Holder, to Lois Lerner, to Wasserman, to a thousand others, they will 'run out the clock' like they always do and it will just fade away like it never happened. Washington D.C. is a no consequences zone of America. Nobody is ever held accountable for anything.

NOTHING will ever happen. NOBODY will be found. And a year from now everything will be completely forgotten. It is always like that in D.C.

"We cannot comment while the investigation is ongoing."
But the 'investigation' has been ongoing for 5 years.
"We cannot comment on the investigation while the investigation is ongoing."

[massadvj]

If true, then she should be impeached and removed from the Court.

I think If Roberts found out the leaker was Sotomayor he would simply put a lid on it.  Roberts would not want the court to go through the political mess that would follow, including the potential trial and impeachment of a fellow justice (assuming the GOP gets control of congress).  In fact, the more this story just fades away, the more likely it is that the leaker was Sotomayor. Roberts simply would not throw her under the bus, which Sotomayor probably well knows.

[Kamaji]

I think If Roberts found out the leaker was Sotomayor he would simply put a lid on it.  Roberts would not want the court to go through the political mess that would follow, including the potential trial and impeachment of a fellow justice (assuming the GOP gets control of congress).  In fact, the more this story just fades away, the more likely it is that the leaker was Sotomayor. Roberts simply would not throw her under the bus, which Sotomayor probably well knows.

Sounds about right.

[sneakypete]

If true, then she should be impeached and removed from the Court.

@Kamaji

True,but I am going to be shocked beyond belief if that happens.

Then again,it is POSSIBLE it MIGHT happen,and look at the message that sends if it does!

And it doesn't cost a damn thing to hope.

[berdie]

I think If Roberts found out the leaker was Sotomayor he would simply put a lid on it.  Roberts would not want the court to go through the political mess that would follow, including the potential trial and impeachment of a fellow justice (assuming the GOP gets control of congress).  In fact, the more this story just fades away, the more likely it is that the leaker was Sotomayor. Roberts simply would not throw her under the bus, which Sotomayor probably well knows.

I agree. especially since I have always had strong suspicions it was Sotomayer or directed by her.

[mountaineer]

From the very beginning, a clerk for Sotomayor or Breyer was suspected. It's not a huge stretch to bring the wise latina into the pool of suspects.