Report: Supreme Court Investigators Draw in on Source of Roe Leak

[mystery-ak]

Report: Supreme Court Investigators Draw in on Source of Roe Leak

Jordan Dixon-Hamilton 13 Jan 2023

U.S. Supreme Court investigators are getting closer to finding the individual who leaked the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, according to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ).

The SCOTUS decision to overturn Roe and bring the abortion issue back to the states was leaked last May. The unprecedented leak was the first Supreme Court leak in modern history.

The independent analysis page, SCOTUSBlog, called the Roe leak “the gravest, most unforgivable sin.”

One day after the leak, Chief Justice John Roberts assigned Supreme Court marshal Gail Curley to investigate the leak. But, with little experience in extensive investigations, Curley and the Supreme Court’s 189-member in-house police force have “brought in assistance from outside government investigators,” according to WSJ.

more
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/01/13/report-supreme-court-investigators-closer-source-roe-leak/

[Hoodat]

U.S. Supreme Court investigators are getting closer to finding the individual who leaked the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, according to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ).

The SCOTUS decision to overturn Roe and bring the abortion issue back to the states was leaked last May.

As if they don't already know.

[Smokin Joe]

Subpoena the reporters who broke the story and grill them on their sources. Creative prosecutors could charge them with something as Accessory after the fact, and even Obstruction if they don't roll over. Even if they don't roll, act like they did, and they'll never have an 'unnamed' source again.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

As if they don't already know.

There"a a chance they might have figured it out by now, but this isn't something they'd "hide".  They'll absolutely expose whomever it is If they get confirmation.  This is the kind of thing that results in suspensions or even disbarrment.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Subpoena the reporters who broke the story and grill them on their sources. Creative prosecutors could charge them with something as Accessory after the fact, and even Obstruction if they don't roll over. Even if they don't roll, act like they did, and they'll never have an 'unnamed' source again.

It likely would be very difficult to charge criminally the reporters involved.  It may well not even be possible to charge the leaker depending on who it was, and how they leaked it.

Reporters aren't going to roll over and expose a source without being dead to rights otherwise.

[Smokin Joe]

It likely would be very difficult to charge criminally the reporters involved.  It may well not even be possible to charge the leaker depending on who it was, and how they leaked it.

Reporters aren't going to roll over and expose a source without being dead to rights otherwise.

Which is why I added the last line. Create doubt between the reporters who should have known better, and the sources who should have behaved. That critical link gets messed up, and this crap will slow down if not stop.

[Hoodat]

This case isn't rocket surgery.  There was a transcript originating from Justice Alito that was leaked to the press.  It shouldn't be difficult to narrow down the number of people inside the court who had access to that document and then have each one submit themselves to a polygraph test which is a condition of their employment.

Investigators already know who the perp is and are now covering for that person.

[Polly Ticks]

There"a a chance they might have figured it out by now, but this isn't something they'd "hide".  They'll absolutely expose whomever it is If they get confirmation.  This is the kind of thing that results in suspensions or even disbarrment.

Color me cynical, because I think that largely depends on the perpetrator's ideology.

[Cyber Liberty]

There"a a chance they might have figured it out by now, but this isn't something they'd "hide".  They'll absolutely expose whomever it is If they get confirmation.  This is the kind of thing that results in suspensions or even disbarrment.

I disagree.  There are Dems working in the Supreme Court staff and they are as partisan as the rest of the destructive Rats.  And ideology does play a role.  If a Republican staffer or Justice did it, we'd have found out the day after the leak.

@Polly Ticks

[Wingnut]

If it was a repub now would be a perfect time for release.  Joe could use some cover from his Docu-gate troubles. 

[Polly Ticks]

I disagree.  There are Dems working in the Supreme Court staff and they are as partisan as the rest of the destructive Rats.  And ideology does play a role.  If a Republican staffer or Justice did it, we'd have found out the day after the leak.

@Polly Ticks

We are definitely on the same page.

[Kamaji]

I disagree.  There are Dems working in the Supreme Court staff and they are as partisan as the rest of the destructive Rats.  And ideology does play a role.  If a Republican staffer or Justice did it, we'd have found out the day after the leak.

@Polly Ticks

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I disagree.  There are Dems working in the Supreme Court staff and they are as partisan as the rest of the destructive Rats.  And ideology does play a role.  If a Republican staffer or Justice did it, we'd have found out the day after the leak.

@Polly Ticks

How?  What's your theory for why the leaker would have been so easy to discover?

The leaker is more than likely a law clerk, so you're talking about very smart, very methodical people who are unlikely to make obvious errors that let them be easily discovered.  They would have access to draft opinions -- given that they ofted do much of the drafting -- and if they'd "copied" it by taking photos of their screen with their (or a burner) phone, there wouldn't be any digital traces to be discovered.  And just try to imagine how you'd figure out who it was if that was the method they used.   Photo taken on a burner, sent by burner to third party who then sends it to journalist, likely anonymously.

It was never going to be easy to find the person unless they did something stupid.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Color me cynical, because I think that largely depends on the perpetrator's ideology.

The way the Court works is that if it was discovered, it would have been reported immediately to Roberts, who then would have told the other 8. And there is no way all of the conservative justices would consent to covering up that identity.  That's something that would earn you a minimum of a lengthy suspension of your license, and an immediate revocation of your duties within the Supreme Court.  And when that happens, there's no way it doesn't leak because there are too many people who would know that one of the clerks -- the most likely culprits -- got the boot.

[Cyber Liberty]

How?  What's your theory for why the leaker would have been so easy to discover?

The leaker is more than likely a law clerk, so you're talking about very smart, very methodical people who are unlikely to make obvious errors that let them be easily discovered.  They would have access to draft opinions -- given that they ofted do much of the drafting -- and if they'd "copied" it by taking photos of their screen with their (or a burner) phone, there wouldn't be any digital traces to be discovered.  And just try to imagine how you'd figure out who it was if that was the method they used.   Photo taken on a burner, sent by burner to third party who then sends it to journalist, likely anonymously.

It was never going to be easy to find the person unless they did something stupid.

The pool of possible leakers is very small, which is why I suspect the ID of that person was probably discovered early on.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

The pool of possible leakers is very small, which is why I suspect the ID of that person was probably discovered early on.

Well, the pool of people that certainly had access is over fifty.  Each Justice and their four clerks, plus one other staff person for each justice.  Again, if the person did it by taking photos of their computer screen with a phone, there would be no digital trail on their system.  That makes it really hard.  Because it's not enough to think you have the right person -- you have to actually be able to prove it.

The identify of Deep Throat wasn't exactly proven in a few months.

[Hoodat]

Well, the pool of people that certainly had access is over fifty.  Each Justice and their four clerks, plus one other staff person for each justice.  Again, if the person did it by taking photos of their computer screen with a phone, there would be no digital trail on their system.  That makes it really hard.  Because it's not enough to think you have the right person -- you have to actually be able to prove it.

The identify of Deep Throat wasn't exactly proven in a few months.

Fifty polygraphs can be administered in less than a week.  This ain't rocket surgery.