Supreme Court justices were interviewed
and not implicated in leak: Marshal
Washington Examiner,
by
Kaelan Deese
Original Article
Posted By: Imright,
1/21/2023 5:25:01 PM
Supreme Court Marshal Gail A. Curley, tasked to investigate the draft opinion leak signaling the overturning of Roe v. Wade, released a statement on Friday saying the justices were interviewed as part of the investigation but were not implicated in the leak.
Chief Justice John Roberts tasked Curley to head up the unprecedented leak after a May 2 Politico report posted an authentic draft of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization opinion.
SIX UNANSWERED QUESTIONS AFTER SUPREME COURT RELEASES INCONCLUSIVE DOBBS LEAK REPORT
Throughout the course of the investigation, Curley spoke with each of the justices on multiple occasions and determined neither the justices nor their spouses were responsible for leaking the opinion and
Reply 1 - Posted by:
bpl40 1/21/2023 5:33:05 PM (No. 1384202)
“Spoke” doesn’t cut it. We’re they put under oath or asked sign a sworn document? No!
15 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
MrDeplorable 1/21/2023 5:46:29 PM (No. 1384211)
What #1 said goes double with me. You're telling us the Justices were not placed under oath in such a historic violation of the confidence and integrity of the effin' Supreme Court of the United States? We conservatives may be deplorable but we ain't stupid.
12 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
rikkitikki 1/21/2023 5:48:44 PM (No. 1384212)
Agree with #1: the investigator said he spoke with the justices, but that was the extent of his investigation of them. They were not put under oath, their emails or other social media were not examined, their computers were not screened, no visitor logs were reviewed...in other words, he did virtually nothing.
No wonder he did not find the leak...in effect, he barely tried to find it, and quit after they all said, in a casual conversation, "nope, wasn't me."
8 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
stablemoney 1/21/2023 6:50:13 PM (No. 1384233)
How do you know the justices are not implicated, as you made no investigation of them by your own admission.
3 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
privateer 1/21/2023 6:57:25 PM (No. 1384237)
Actually, the nine did take the 'Marauders' Map' oath: I solemnly swear that I am up to no good. When Larry, Moe and Curley left they said: 'mischief managed'.
1 person likes this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
DVC 1/21/2023 7:13:14 PM (No. 1384247)
Get them to do sworn testimony, as others have said.
5 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
EQKimball 1/21/2023 7:57:17 PM (No. 1384275)
Under Art. III of the Constitution, federal judges are appointed during terms of "good behavior." For practical purposes that almost always means for life or until retirement. Moreover, there is no remedy for bad behavior other than impeachment and conviction, impossible with an equally divided Congress, and two-thirds required for conviction in the Senate. So is leaking bad behavior?? The other two branches of government leak like sieves and would likely regard this as an internal matter for the Court. Sometimes a member is removed from a committee, but because they are not "officers of the United States," the Supreme Court long ago determined that members of the House and Senate could not be impeached.
So ask yourself, what would be the remedy in the event of a leaking justice? Certainly not removal, unless perhaps from an internal administrative committee of some kind. Chief Justice Roberts could not possibly want to open up a can of worms by accusing a fellow justice, meanwhile almost certainly becoming the witch-hunting villain in the eyes of the press and the Democrats in Congress if the justice were a liberal. Whatever his private thoughts on this may be, such disclosure will probably even be lacking in his future memoirs.
0 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
Kate318 1/21/2023 8:08:58 PM (No. 1384282)
The government—and SCOTUS in particular—seems to have no limit to just how stupid they think we are.
5 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
bighambone 1/21/2023 9:15:42 PM (No. 1384328)
During the investigation asking questions alone was not going to uncover the person or persons who leaked that confidential US Supreme Court information. As why would the leaker or leakers admit that and probably lose their position at the court? If everyone who had access to that information was not subjected to professionally performed polygraph examinations, it is evident that the investigation was a sham, designed to cover the butts of the people in charge, and that there really was no intention of determining the identity or the leaker or leakers.
3 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
Venturer 1/21/2023 10:10:07 PM (No. 1384372)
This investigation was a farce.
They know where the leak came from.
4 people like this.
I do not believe this was one of the Justices. More likely it is one of the zealots that are working for the Justices.
2 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
Tet Vet 68 1/21/2023 11:20:41 PM (No. 1384409)
My money is still on the the so called " Wise Latina". I don't buy we couldn't fine who did it. This was an inside job it was one of the leftist justices.
2 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
mifla 1/22/2023 5:50:03 AM (No. 1384474)
The Executive branch is corrupt.
The Legislative branch is corrupt.
The trifecta is complete.
RIP America.
3 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
ARKfamily 1/22/2023 8:06:52 AM (No. 1384529)
Oh, and I am sure they used polygraph lie detector tests. . .
2 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
JimBob 1/22/2023 9:19:17 PM (No. 1385095)
Can you spell W-H-I-T-E-W-A-S-H?
0 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Imright"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)