Newsmaxx broke the story.. Newsmax host Grant Stinchfield was criticized after he claimed without evidence that Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson is responsible for leaking a Supreme Court draft opinion that would gut abortion rights. However, Jackson, who last month was confirmed to the Supreme Court, could not have been the source of the leak because she has not yet been sworn in and won't be until this summer.
70 people inside SCOTUS had access to Alito's draft, the leaker is one of them. How the Supreme Court could proceed with the Roe leak probe The Justice Department does not plan to get involved for now, meaning the marshal of the court would be left to her own devices. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-proceed-roe-leak-probe-rcna27508 Federal law enforcement officials said Thursday that they are not involved in the Supreme Court’s investigation of who leaked an early draft of a Supreme Court opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade. The leak, published late Monday by Politico, ignited a firestorm of protest from supporters of abortion rights alarmed at the prospect that the court was preparing to wipe away 50 years of legal precedents guaranteeing access to the procedure. Democratic leaders in Congress vowed to push for a federal law that would bar states from making it illegal. Chief Justice John Roberts ordered the court’s marshal, the chief security officer, “to launch an investigation into the course of the leak.” Since then, the court has declined to provide further information about how the investigation will be carried out. Does the leak violate federal law? Administration officials said the Justice Department’s view, at this early stage, is that the leak did not constitute a federal crime. Accordingly, neither the FBI nor other federal law enforcement organizations are involved in any investigation, the officials said. Asked about the matter at a news conference Thursday, Attorney General Merrick Garland had nothing to add. “The chief justice has announced that the marshal of the court will be doing the investigation,” he said. Some legal experts said the leak could be considered a technical violation of a federal law that prohibits giving a government document to someone not authorized to receive it. But under long-standing Justice Department practice, such actions are not prosecuted when the material is conveyed to a reporter for the purpose of making it public. The policy is intended in part to protect government whistleblowers. The lack of involvement by the Justice Department could change if it turns out the document was obtained through some criminal action, such as trespassing or computer hacking. What could the marshal of the court do? Gail Curley has been the Supreme Court’s marshal for the past year, managing 260 employees, including members of the court’s police force. She went to the court from the Army, for which she was chief of the national security law division of the Judge Advocate General’s Office. A former FBI official now working for a private security contractor, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the marshal and her police force can review the court’s email and phone records and examine logs from the court’s photocopies and printers. Mark Rasch, a former Justice Department computer crimes prosecutor, said that in addition to those steps, the marshal can also seek to interview the roughly 70 people in the court who had access to the draft, written by Justice Samuel Alito. “That’s a lot to work with,” he said. One sensitive issue, however, would be whether and how the marshal and her staff could or would seek to interview the justices themselves. Since it issued the statement from the chief justice Tuesday, the court has declined to provide any further information about the nature or progress of the investigation, including whether any private security companies have been brought on board to assist. The Supreme Court has dealt with leaks before. In 1973, Time magazine published a story describing the Roe v. Wade decision before the court announced it. Author James Robenalt said Warren Burger, who was then the chief justice, suggested he might require the court’s law clerks to take polygraph tests. But the clerk who leaked the story to Time came forward voluntarily. Leak cases are notoriously difficult to investigate, even for law enforcement agencies that have the power to use search warrants and subpoenas. In this case, Rasch said, Curley has two main tools: “cooperation and intimidation.”
If they thought it was the clerk or other connection to a conservative justice they would most definitely send the FBI in. And all of that recitation above about whether it is or is not a crime would quickly be overcome if the person lied to an FBI agent. - which is a crime and would be the FBI's go-to tool, especially when taking action against conservatives.
Until she starts... she doesn't even have access to the court complex much less the computer system unless she is invited as a guest by a staff member to visit the complex. Better go check out the visitor logs to support this absurd conspiracy theory.
The leak is just wrong rather than criminal so the point is simply to find out who it was so they can be fired. Obviously there is a good story from the con and lib side as to who leaked it which means it will never be found out and FOX and CNN and can spend the next month making up stories as to who might have leaked it. The Newsmaxx guy is just a complete fucktard typical of what newsmaxx and OAN put out.
Whoa. Fuel on the fire. I hope that no libs break into the supreme court building or grounds and they start executing unarmed protesters. We have seen that before. Bill Classifying Abortion as Homicide Is Advanced by Louisiana Lawmakers The proposal threatens to prosecute women who end a pregnancy, a possible new frontier in the abortion debate as the Supreme Court appears inclined to overturn Roe v. Wade. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/05/us/louisiana-abortion-bill-homicide.html
I think LA is going to get slammed for this. SC overturned the decision that the Constitution protects the right to abortions under the right to privacy afforded under the 14th A. SC never said abortions were illegal or were construed under criminal statutes, just that a state can prohibit them if they so legislate. Perhaps aas part of the prohibition there would be civil penalties. But deeming something a felony which requires full Due Process is not in line with Dobbs and is an extreme over reach on the part of LA. The standards for criminal conduct and punishments are quite high versus civil penalties and there be a fucktard in the LA legislature proposing this. This is what happens when fucktards knee jerk react because technially Roe v Wade is the law of the land as no official decision was reached by the S.C.
I get that, nevertheless, a decision that allows states to "prohibit them" probably allows for criminalizing in some instances. Otherwise, it is all just reduced to an advisory role for the state to the public. I say in "some instances" because clearly there are a lot scenarios that might fall under the umbrella of "abortions" such as through home medication and all of that. The point is that - if the decision holds in what is probably its current form- that whole "right to privacy" foundation for Roe goes out the window. Then comes the next wave of abortion cases that come at it from other angles. Somewhat ironically all the lefties are out there invoking the name of Ruthie to champion their cause. In fact Ruth was highly critical of Roe and thought that it was sloppy and an overreach that would just pit the two sides together in conflict forever and a day which it has so far. She wanted to decide it on a narrower ground to move the ball ahead and then let states decide. Essentially where we are now or about to be. Not a convenient truth for the libs. Along with a previous Planned Parenthood National Director arguing that it might be better off at the state level anyway, rather than take the risk that a court decision might limit abortions.
Well civil fines are always easy to pass through legislation if a state wishes to prohibit abortions but declaring them a felony as homicide quite another. Also, imagine a series of centers who have done abortions for 20 years under Roe standard and then the state declares abortions prohibited in all instances. Could present quite an interesting takings clause without Due process if the state wipes out entire industries that were legal and permitted one day and then not...