January 19, 2023

"The Supreme Court announced on Thursday that an internal investigation had failed to identify the person who leaked a draft of the opinion overturning Roe v. Wade...."

"In a 20-page report, the court’s marshal, responsible for overseeing the inquiry, said that investigators had conducted 126 formal interviews of 97 employees, all of whom had denied being the source of the leak. Investigators also found no forensic evidence by examining the court’s 'computer devices, networks, printers and available call and text logs,' the report said. Several employees of the court did admit to investigators, the report said, that they had told their spouses or partners about the draft opinion and the vote count in violation of the court’s confidentiality rules. But the investigation did not determine that any of those discussions led to a copy of the draft opinion becoming public....."

The NYT reports.

82 comments:

n.n said...

privacy

Big Mike said...

So it really was one of the liberal justices.

gahrie said...

What a complete and utter disgrace. I used to think Taney was our worst Chief Justice... Roberts makes him look respectable.

Achilles said...

It was Roberts or one of his lib allies then.

And the leaker probably threatened to out the justice as a collaborator.

Iman said...

I. Am. Shocked!

Tom T. said...

It does not sound like they were able to interview the Justices themselves.

Fredrick said...

Maybe firing a few folks would set a different precedent than the "Got away with it." precedent being set?

Lem Vibe Bandit said...

It was chief pirate Roberts.

Mr Wibble said...

It was a justice. My money is on Sotomayor. She gave the WH a copy of the draft opinion as a heads-up of what was coming. The WH chose to leak it to Politico because they needed a distraction at the time.

Dave Begley said...

How pathetic. The perfect crime.

Dave Begley said...

"In particular, in discussing the scrutiny of “employees” of the court, the report did not say whether investigators also looked at the personal communications of the justices themselves — or those of their spouses."

It wasn't Ginny Lamp Thomas!

Rabel said...

Are the Justices "employees."

If not, then I don't see a clear statement that they were interviewed.

Dave Begley said...

Has a crime been committed? If so, the real police should call in for questioning the Politico reporter. And if that person won't answer, hold him in contempt. Put that person in the same jail as the J6 defendants.

Better yet, have the House Judiciary Commitee call in the reporter for questioning. If that person won't appear, cite him for contempt. Throw him in jail like the Dems wanted to do with Steve Bannon.

Jim Gust said...

I agree that it was Sotomayor, and that the Court didn't want the firestorm that would ensue if the information became public.

Whether the White House was involved seems less certain.

rehajm said...

Might go ask the Gulla Chief for a curse on the leaker, then…

Whelp, if the goal if the leak was to alter the outcome it failed. No more free flowing abortions.

BarrySanders20 said...

What an impotent branch of government. Sad.

DINKY DAU 45 said...

Record low approval of this tribunal what else would you expect?

Readering said...

Hard to believe a justice could do it without leaving a trail.

MikeD said...

I'm with Mr. Wibble, Roberts may not be the conservative many want but don't see this benefiting his Judicial philosophy/rulings in any way. Sotomayor, as the most liberal and mentally incompetent Justice, is the culprit.

Jim at said...

You expected something else? They didn't want to find the leaker. And even if they did, they were never going to go public with it.

But now the precedent's been set? Good luck in the future, clowns.

Drago said...

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Exactly as predicted.

Next up: Andy McCarthy pens another op-ed explaining why this "investigation" (snort) result is in perfect keeping with the honor and deep deep "integrity" of both the court and the justice system.

Years from now, when the truth comes out and the obvious is made explicit, McCarthy will then, and only then, publish a complaining piece in which he harrumphs at least 6 times before defending the honor and integrity of those who replaced the exposed corruptocrats.....though the new guys will be just the same.

TheOne Who Is Not Obeyed said...

Looking for my shocked face. It's nowhere to be found.

All three branches of our federal government are irredeemably corrupt.

gilbar said...

so, this means, it WAS the wide latina, herself.. right?

James K said...

It does not sound like they were able to interview the Justices themselves.

Weren't able to, or chose not to?

Left Bank of the Charles said...

How many of the Justices did they interview? I would bet “97 employees” doesn’t include Justices. The Marshall’s report says all 97 employees signed affidavits swearing they didn’t do it. I would bet the Justice weren’t asked to sign such affidavits. And how many of the Justices told their spouses or partners about the draft opinion and vote count? There’s a “round up the usual suspects” quality to this investigation.

Humperdink said...

Just like the WaPoo is protecting is protecting Lyin' Biden, the Supreme Court is protecting a favored lefty. If it was a conservative, they would commissioned an airplane to sky write the offender's name.

mccullough said...

It was the Ghost of Potter Stewart

PeteRR said...

They should have questioned them all under oath and they should have polygraphed every one of them.

wendybar said...

Big freaking surprise...... NOT. Progressives can do anything and not have to worry about getting arrested, accused or raided.

Jim said...

If they only interviewed "employees," then can we assume no justices were interviewed?

BUMBLE BEE said...

And yet, ANOTHER tier of injustice! I'm shocked... shocked I tell you!

BUMBLE BEE said...

Lying goes all the way to the top.
Something about keeping a republic somewhere.

Misinforminimalism said...

For an uber-institutionalist, Roberts sure is bad at propping up the institution.

Big Mike said...

Not original to me, but over at Ace of Spades HQ the head concludes that “the investigation successfully failed to catch the Dobbs leaker. Sorts sums it up succinctly.

WK said...

Unexpectedly.

gahrie said...

One more norm destroyed on the bonfire of Progressivism.

I'm sure glad things got boring.....

Butkus51 said...

Gomer Pyle: Surprise, surprise.

jpg said...

First time a leftist draft opinion is leaked, THAT investigation will be solved within three days. Thumbnail pullers, hot irons, hours of exposure to Miley Cyrus music, they'll get it done.

Mountain Maven said...

Incompetent investigators. They should have made all the suspects take lie detector tests, first the employees then the Justices. I wouldn't put it past Sotomayor either.

Jess said...

I'd think they'd crucify an underling for the leak, which makes me think it was a justice and the chaos which that would create would cause more harm than good. It proves the security of their court is compromised, and tampering possible.

TaeJohnDo said...

All of our institutions are becoming third world style sh!t holes.

rcocean said...

Shocking. I guess the opinion just flew out the window and into the hands of the NYT/Wapo/CNN

To repeat: They all know who leaked it. My bet is on Breyer, since he was leaving, had a motive, and no real respect for Roberts or the conservatives.

It doesn't really matter, since it only affects their internal deliberations. Too bad they had to go through this clown show investigation.

Lucien said...

So now they’re going to give some real investigators a shot at it, right?

Earnest Prole said...

As I noted earlier, the most likely vector for the leaked draft is the partner of someone working for the Supreme Court. There are something like 140 clerks, most with partners, many of whom (in typical Washington fashion) work for assorted ideological and journalistic (but I repeat myself) organizations; leave the decision on the dining room table while running errands and no words need be spoken.

wendybar said...

Jonathan Turley
@JonathanTurley
The Supreme Court's report indicates that they cannot isolate the culprit among the over 80 possible suspects for the Dobbs leak. It is an admission that is almost as chilling as the leak itself...
2:43 PM · Jan 19, 2023

wendybar said...


Paul McPherson
@PaulScottMc
Replying to
@JonathanTurley
Another sad day for this once great nation. Is it me or does anyone else think our finest days are way behind us?
3:20 PM · Jan 19, 2023

ConradBibby said...

The insinuation seems to be that a lot of people had access to a printed copy of the draft opinion, and there was nothing to stop someone from leaving the building at the end of the day with such a copy in a purse or backpack, and then handing it off to someone who could hand it off to a reporter. If all that is true, then it's not surprising that they were unable to find the culprit. However, 97 employees and 126 formal interviews means either 29 employees got interviewed twice, or some smaller number than 29 got interviewed three or more times. I'd be interested to see that list of names.

ConradBibby said...

As an afterthought to my comment above, I'd REALLY be interested to know which, if any, of the people who were formally interviewed sought to have counsel present with them for the interview(s).

Mr Wibble said...

I agree that it was Sotomayor, and that the Court didn't want the firestorm that would ensue if the information became public.

Whether the White House was involved seems less certain.


I don't believe that any of the nine would want to tarnish the court's reputation by leaking to the press, even the liberal justices. And if they were to leak, there are better options than Politico. More likely someone leaked in order to give the left time to prepare a legislative or administrative response.

The White House, on the other hand, had already leaked the news of Breyer's retirement, likely so that Biden could announce a SCOTUS nominee before the SOTU, so it's not as far-fetched that they would go a step further, especially with a decision which they knew would rile up their base.

n.n said...

Maybe the baby... fetal-baby... person of pink leaked the opinion. A 1-2 compromise in the open is worse than 3/5 but better than the alternative.

Breezy said...

This really bad. The Justices families and homes were put at significant risk due to the leak. It’s inexcusable that there is no accountability for it. Shame on Roberts.

Chick said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Drago said...

Readering: "Hard to believe a justice could do it without leaving a trail."

Roberts made sure to appoint the one body that can't really "investigate" at all, the Marshall of the Supreme Court.

What the heck was that guy supposed to do? By design, that dude/organization is NOT an investigative agency.

Well, isn't that very convenient?

Chick said...

Another creative Roberts ruling

narciso said...

well there is a note by mr burns lookalike michael chertoff, who says this was the most professional investigation, chertoff was slated for the dejure ministry of disinfo,

William said...

Well, they're just not as smart as they think they are.

Quod erat demonstrandum

Yancey Ward said...

I have followed this with nothing but amusement. No law was broken as far as I can tell, and it isn't like info hasn't been leaked out before. I do think it was done by someone who wanted Roe upheld, but I thought at the time leaking it would not only fail to work at overcoming the vote count, but might actually be counterproductive. In the end, it doesn't seem to have mattered at all, and the investigation was certainly a waste of time.

tim maguire said...

Blogger Readering said...Hard to believe a justice could do it without leaving a trail.

Hard to believe any of them could do it without leaving a trail. Which is why I think they’re lying. Either they didn’t conduct a real investigation or they know who did it and are pretending not to. Which, sadly, is exactly what I expect from our government today. I have no faith whatsoever in Washington’s ability to police itself. At all.

Readering said...

Looks like Court going to be doing a lot to upgrade security and make like a pain for the oldsters.

Dude1394 said...

So the Supreme Court is just as incompetent as the rest of the government.

Aggie said...

Whutta Supprize

Now we'll all be treated to the pious homilies from the Inside-the-Beltway team as they fill us full of bullsh*t about how the Supreme Court remains untarnished by this minor blemish from a faceless activist, its long legacy of integrity intact and undisputed...

Next up: CDC wins gold award for Truth in Medical Advocacy.

PJ57 said...

Not hard to lock down a draft document behind a "no print" and "no forward" wall. Maybe it would have been better to investigate who was against that.

n.n said...

I do think it was done by someone who wanted Roe upheld

Yes, an incentive to hold another nationwide insurrection to force people to take a knee, beg, go along to get along.

the investigation was certainly a waste of time.

It's the cover-up. Select Committee, revisited.

Lem Vibe Bandit said...

It was a justice. My money is on Sotomayor. She gave the WH a copy of the draft opinion as a heads-up of what was coming. The WH chose to leak it to Politico because they needed a distraction at the time.

It's possible. Roberts probably chose to keep it secret, fearing the long-term problem such a revelation would create. First question I would ask. Does a justice leak rise to the level of an impeachable offence? The senate still in Democrats control; are they going to convict the wise latina because she leaked a draft? Roberts made the decision.

James K said...

there was nothing to stop someone from leaving the building at the end of the day with such a copy in a purse or backpack, and then handing it off to someone who could hand it off to a reporter.

From what I've read, they were working from home a lot, so it wasn't even a question of taking it from the building. They had it at home already. Essentially no security at all.

Doug said...

1. The over/under on the wide latina residing from the court sure to health reasons is3 months. Whether she likes it or notb.

2. A liberal whistleblower that works for the Supremes could get Roberts impeached, allowing Ron Klaine to nominate an uber lib to replace.

boatbuilder said...

Pathetic. And entirely consistent with what any sane person would expect from the administration of the Supreme Court.

All politics and no credibility.

Lem Vibe Bandit said...

Could a fellow justice objectively preside over the trial of a fellow justice?

Accusing Sotomayor would open a pandoras full of worms.

paminwi said...

Justices, I am sure they had physical copies of the document.
Why not buy a burner phone. Take pictures with that burner phone.
DC is an incestuous swamp.
Forward that phone to someone who has a spouse in the media.
The media person never has to expose their source.

I am sure I have not thought of everything.

PM said...

After all this time and they still couldn't figure out how to blame it on Trump.

Narayanan said...

if only draft had been marked 'for your eyes only' james bond could be dispatched

Narayanan said...

right honorable Dave Begley aksked...
Has a crime been committed?
Has a crime been committed? >
I am surprised legal bigwigs with big heads even acquiesced to be 3d degrree

rcocean said...

Roberts never should have been appointed Chief Justice. That was Bush's decision. He didn't want to fight the Democrats to get Scalia appointed. And he secretly wanted "moderate" Roberts in the Chair.

His two most absurd rulings were refusing to the allow the Census to include a question on citizenship and legal status. Another was stopping Trump's executive order that cancelled Obama's DACA executive order. Roberts agreed the Obama order was wrong, but said Trump couldn't overturn it because it didn't go through the right "steps". None of these "Steps" are written anywhere, except in Roberts brain.

iowan2 said...

All serious people that follow the politics knew when Roberts used the Court Marshall, instead of the FBI, the coverup was set.

Roberts is the most political Justice in modern times. His constant work to shade everything so the court doesn't "appear" political, has made the Court very political

The intractable problem, the Constitution is very conservative. So if the rulings are true to the Constitution, the decisions are going to be conservative.

Joe Bar said...

No surprises here.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Bullshit; entirely predictable bullshit.

Rt41Rebel said...

They didn't find the problem because they didn't want to find the problem. Same MO for the last 50 years or so.

lane ranger said...

The NYT commenters are in near universal agreement that the leaker was one of the conservative justices, and the leak was done in order to cement the votes in favor of overturning Roe. What this fails to account for is that the draft was leaked to a lefty journalist, and that lefty journalists do not cover for conservative justices. If the leaker had been, or been associated with, a conservative justice, we would already know his or her identity.

lane ranger said...

The NYT commenters are in near universal agreement that the leaker was one of the conservative justices, and the leak was done in order to cement the votes in favor of overturning Roe. What this fails to account for is that the draft was leaked to a lefty journalist, and that lefty journalists do not cover for conservative justices. If the leaker had been, or been associated with, a conservative justice, we would already know his or her identity.

Christopher B said...

This confirms that the leak did not come from any one of the five supporting Alito's opinion or anyone connected to them. There would be no reason to hide the identity of that person, and if it was one of the five Justices it would have been the easiest way for the Democrats to get another liberal (aka another ally for Roberts) on the Court.

It's a toss-up whether it was Roberts, one of the Liberals, or the Biden WH, and really makes no difference. Every conservative Justice is now on notice that any of their comments or drafts might show up in public at any time, with no one held accountable.

Rory said...

If firing the leaker isn't possible, then the people in charge of security have to be fired.

Rick67 said...

Which is worse? That it was a justice? or that it was a clerk who managed to get away with it?*

One of the findings in this report is that the Court's security policies and procedures are rather lax.

*Yesterday read a Substack post offering a plausible scenario for how a clerk could have done it while largely preserving his/her anonymity. Burner phone. Dead drop. Classic spook craft.