Reply to Bombshell: NYT story suggests Alito is the leaker of Dobbs decision

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Bombshell: NYT story suggests Alito is the leaker of Dobbs decision "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I had a longer answer but the forums went down (for the format switch? Looks good, Jeff!).

It’s pretty clear that the leaker is Alito or one of his agents and it’s offensive that he thinks so little of Americans that he believes we won’t notice it was obviously a right winger (doesn’t stop him from insinuating otherwise!)

It’s like my four year insisting he didn’t eat the piece of chocolate cake despite frosting smeared on his face and fingers. [/quote]

So not a snark but do want to know why do you think it’s obvious that Alito was the leaker in the Dobbs decision?[/quote]

It is a ridiculous theory. 
It was not surprising that following the leak the "conservative" Justices' homes were stalked and loons demonstrated for months.  It is probably still occurring.  They didn't expect a nutcase to fly across country with the intent of assassinating one of them, but it is not surprising that it happened. 
They knew this would be a reaction because the left protests ANY thing they don't like....
So, he leaks a draft so they could be subject to death threats and months of protests?

Nope - this was someone on the left hoping that pressure would cause a change in the decision.  
That backfired.

[/quote]

Have a real investigation with the FBI and grand jury. Bring in the conservatives judges and put them under oath. Not that that would matter. The conservatives do not believe in the Constitution and would think nothing if lying under oath. Bet they would start talking about the  admiralty court.  :roll: [/quote]

Note that the FBI can’t find the 1/6 bomber either, despite two videos from different angles. [/quote]

Video rarely leads to catching criminals.

Here is how SCOTUS cleared itself of wrong doing.

[quote] [b]Unfortunately, the leak investigation it conducted demonstrates how not to conduct a leak investigation[/b]. It also illustrates, again, the need for internal oversight at the Court, which should have a better permanent capacity to police itself by more credibly investigating alleged misconduct and by identifying faulty procedures proactively.

The first problem in the Court’s leak investigation was whom the Court asked to conduct it. The marshal of the Court, Gail A. Curley, is responsible for overseeing the Supreme Court building’s operations, providing security for the justices and the building, disbursing payrolls, and managing the courtroom, including calling it to order. Curley is a former Army lawyer who does not have experience or expertise in conducting this type of complex investigation.

Even more problematic, the marshal did not have the necessary independence to conduct the investigation. In essence, she was asked to investigate her bosses, the justices, who are in the universe of potential leakers. They supervise her and can fire her. She was conflicted from the start. That is no reflection on Curley or her integrity. Any marshal would have been placed in the same position.

The second problem was how the investigation was conducted. According to the report itself, the probe focused on Court personnel—law clerks and permanent employees, who were intensively interrogated. They were required to sign notarized affidavits. Their personal cellphones were scrutinized. They were questioned as to whether they had talked about Court decisions with anyone, including their spouses, in the Dobbs case or other cases, prior to public release. According to the report, follow-up was pursued on leads relating to the clerks and employees.

The investigation did not treat the justices in the same way. When the report was issued, whether they had even been interviewed was not clear. It makes no mention of investigating the justices at all[/quote]

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/03/supreme-court-dobbs-leak-investigation-internal-oversight/673283/

A fake investigation with the outcome predetermining the innocence of Alito. [/quote]

The Atlantic?  Surely you jest.  
And, the last sentence is flat out false.  You would think they would do a little more research given this article was published after this CNN article:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/21/politics/supreme-court-justices-investigation-dobbs-leak/index.html#:~:text=The%20Supreme%20Court%20marshal%20who,implicate%20them%20or%20their%20spouses.

It states:
"The Supreme Court marshal who investigated last year’s leak of a draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade has revealed that she spoke to all nine justices and found nothing to implicate them or their spouses."

This Atlantic article is yet another example of a hit piece that is designed to discredit the court.  
The tactic the left is taking here is very dangerous.

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics