Nearly a Month After the Supreme Court Leak, Investigators Are Finally Asking for Clerks' Phone Records, and to Sign Affidavits

The signing of the affidavits is important because while the leak itself might not have been a crime, lying to a federal officer in an investigation is a crime.

Or, as we've just found out: May be a crime if you're a Republican. It's not a crime at all if you're a Democrat who's lying to advance the left wing's political agenda.

Why is this "major escalation" only happening now? The guests Megyn Kelly had on to discuss this predicted that the leaker would be found quickly but only because they believed these elementary, basic steps of investigation would be undertaken in the first days of the investigation.

And yet here we are, almost a calendar month later, and only now are they fixin' to start ponderin' a consideration of the beginning of the most basic possible investigatory steps they could take.

Is this because Roberts told the Supreme Court Marshal to "keep it collegial" and not to be intrusive? Or did the Marshal just decide to go easy on the liberal clerks on her own? (I think it's a her.)

Does Roberts really want to find the leaker, or is he really trying to help the leaker escape detection?

In any event, clerks, plural, are considering lawyering up rather than cooperate with the "major escalation" in the probe (which is really just doing basic stuff that should have been done in the opening hours of the investigation).

Supreme Court officials are escalating their search for the source of the leaked draft opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade, taking steps to require law clerks to provide cell phone records and sign affidavits, three sources with knowledge of the efforts have told CNN.

Some clerks are apparently so alarmed over the moves, particularly the sudden requests for private cell data, that they have begun exploring whether to hire outside counsel.

...

Chief Justice John Roberts met with law clerks as a group after the breach, CNN has learned, but it is not known whether any systematic individual interviews have occurred.

It's an open question as to whether they even bothered to interrogate the clerks individually?

Holy shit.

Lawyers outside the court who have become aware of the new inquiries related to cell phone details warn of potential intrusiveness on clerks' personal activities, irrespective of any disclosure to the news media, and say they may feel the need to obtain independent counsel.

"That's what similarly situated individuals would do in virtually any other government investigation," said one appellate lawyer with experience in investigations and knowledge of the new demands on law clerks. "It would be hypocritical for the Supreme Court to prevent its own employees from taking advantage of that fundamental legal protection."

Sources familiar with efforts underway say the exact language of the affidavits or the intended scope of that cell phone search -- content or time period covered -- is not yet clear.

posted by Ace at 02:12 PM

| Access Comments