Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. Supreme Court report fails to identify abortion ruling leak culprit
reuters via MSN ^ | January 19, 2023 | Andrew Chung and John Kruzel

Posted on 01/19/2023 1:11:51 PM PST by fluorescence

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday released a report on the May 2022 leak of a draft version of its blockbuster ruling overturning the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that had legalized abortion nationwide, but failed to identify who was behind the disclosure that rocked the nation's top judicial body.

[snip]

The report, prepared by the Supreme Court marshal Gail Curley at the direction of Chief Justice John Roberts, did not identify a specific source of the leak.

"In time, continued investigation and analysis may produce additional leads that could identify the source of the disclosure," the report stated. "Whether or not any individual is ever identified as the source of the disclosure, the court should take action to create and implement better policies to govern the handling of court-sensitive information and determine the best IT systems for security and collaboration."

The leak investigation was conducted at a time of increased scrutiny of the court and concerns about an erosion of its legitimacy, with opinion polls showing dropping public confidence in the institution. Only 43% of Americans have a favorable view of the court, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted Jan. 13-15, down from 50% last May.

After examining the court's computer devices, networks, printers and available call and text logs, investigators have found no forensic evidence indicating who disclosed the draft opinion, the report said.

"At this time, based on a preponderance of the evidence standard, it is not possible to determine the identity of any individual who may have disclosed the document or how the draft opinion ended up with Politico," the report stated.

(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...


TOPICS: Government
KEYWORDS: abortionleak; coverup; supremecourt; supremecourtleak
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-30 next last

1 posted on 01/19/2023 1:11:51 PM PST by fluorescence
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: fluorescence

Why am I not surprised. Sweep it under the rug.


2 posted on 01/19/2023 1:13:11 PM PST by SailormanCGA72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fluorescence

They know. They lie.


3 posted on 01/19/2023 1:14:08 PM PST by Quentin Quarantino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fluorescence

John Roberts is the leaker most likely.


4 posted on 01/19/2023 1:14:36 PM PST by subterfuge (I'm a pure-blood!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fluorescence

5 posted on 01/19/2023 1:14:36 PM PST by Repealthe17thAmendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fluorescence

Is anybody surprised?


6 posted on 01/19/2023 1:14:50 PM PST by rdl6989 ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fluorescence
A polygraph should have been utilized in the investigation. However, it wasn't and therefore the investigation really didn't seek out the culprits.
7 posted on 01/19/2023 1:15:43 PM PST by thegagline (Sic semper tyrannis! Goldwater 2024)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fluorescence

My money would be on one of the liberal justices that did it and they don’t want to identify the culprit so their making up this BS report


8 posted on 01/19/2023 1:17:09 PM PST by shotgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fluorescence

Surprise! democrats cover for their soldiers.


9 posted on 01/19/2023 1:17:20 PM PST by joma89 (Buy weapons and ammo, folks, and have the will to use them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fluorescence

Your honor, we are unable to reach a verdict.


10 posted on 01/19/2023 1:18:22 PM PST by gloryblaze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thegagline

I don’t think anyone was even interviewed by fed agents to at least make it a felony to lie to them about it. So now we will probably have someone eventually come out and sell a book about their leaking.

FReegards


11 posted on 01/19/2023 1:22:52 PM PST by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: shotgun

Sotomayor leaked it.


12 posted on 01/19/2023 1:24:52 PM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Quentin Quarantino

Damn right they know. I bet they knew within 2 weeks of the leak. We know Thomas and Alito are men of honor so l have to wonder what the price of their silence is.


13 posted on 01/19/2023 1:26:01 PM PST by gibsonguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: kabar

She is my first guess too.


14 posted on 01/19/2023 1:26:27 PM PST by shotgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: kabar

Or one of her clerks


15 posted on 01/19/2023 1:27:24 PM PST by combat_boots ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: kabar
Sotomayor leaked it.

From the start I've always suspected "The Wide Latina".

16 posted on 01/19/2023 1:29:00 PM PST by The Sons of Liberty (Ultra MAGA in Biden's Post Constitutional United Socialist States of Amerika!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: fluorescence

Shocking!!!!


17 posted on 01/19/2023 1:29:27 PM PST by qaz123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fluorescence

It was Roberts himself, that’s why. Roberts is dirty.


18 posted on 01/19/2023 1:30:07 PM PST by oil_dude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fluorescence

Typical result of a government internal investigation. They had something like forty potential candidates and after over eight months, they have no idea who leaked the info . . .


19 posted on 01/19/2023 1:35:10 PM PST by MCSETots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fluorescence

Did this investigation involve questioning people at the Politico, as to how they obtained the documents? If not would such questioning just be outside the jurisdiction of the investigation that did happen?


20 posted on 01/19/2023 1:38:33 PM PST by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-30 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson