Leaks: US Supreme Court Staffer Leaks Roe v Wade... WitchHunt Protests Police Ensue

[grarpamp]

Supreme Court Demands Cellphone Records And Affidavits From Clerks In
Leak Investigation

https://jonathanturley.org/2022/05/31/supreme-court-reportedly-to-demand-cellphones-and-affidavits-from-clerks-in-leak-investigation/
https://jonathanturley.org/2022/05/06/the-license-to-leak-how-years-of-attacks-on-the-court-may-have-created-a-by-any-means-mentality-on-the-court/
https://jonathanturley.org/2022/05/09/the-only-one-that-makes-sense-nprs-totenberg-claims-the-leading-theory-is-that-the-leaker-is-a-conservative-clerk/

The Supreme Court appears to be ratcheting up its investigation into
the leaking of the draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health
Organization.

According to CNN, the Court is asking clerks to provide cell phone
records and sign affidavits.

Some of us have been surprised by Chief Justice John Roberts’ decision
not to ask for assistance from the FBI, which is the world’s leading
law enforcement agency on computer and forensic investigations.

Yet, the affidavits may come with the most worrisome change for the
leaker. Once signed, the leaker will reaffirm his or her potential
criminal liability.

The cellphone records raise obvious privacy concerns.

Communications with Politico or intermediaries can be masked or
concealed as casual or personal exchanges. An email entitled “Leaked
Confidential Dobbs Draft” is not likely to exist. That means that any
meaningful review would require a broader review, creating challenges
in how to filter messages and emails.

The affidavit may be a greater concern for the leaker. After all, the
leaker may have wisely avoided using the cellphone or creating digital
tracks. The affidavit is a sworn statement to federal investigators.
If false, it would establish that a federal crime has been committed.
Under 18 U.S.C. 1001, it is a federal crime to knowingly and willfully
make a materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement in any
matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or
judicial branch of the United States.

That would mean that any doubt would be removed for the leaker. If he
or she were to go public or be uncovered in the future, there would be
a risk of not simply disbarment but criminal prosecution. The leaker
may expect that they will be lionized for this effort in the media,
though that is more likely if it was a liberal rather than a
conservative leaker. This could frustrate such plans. Frankly, I am
surprised that such affidavits were not required in the first week.

Despite claims that the leaker is clearly coming from one side or the
other, there are equally plausible theories for a leaker on the right
or the left. What is clear is that this was a disgracefully unethical
act that shattered the long traditions of the Court. The affidavits
will make it more difficult for this individual to later try to
capitalize on this wrongful act.