May 5, 2022 6:38 pm at 6:38 pm #2083659
They’ve reached a new low… intimidate Supreme Court judges to change their opinions to support their depravity. They are all guilty of treason.May 5, 2022 7:16 pm at 7:16 pm #2083680
What are you talking about? Only republicans can be insurrectionistsMay 5, 2022 10:31 pm at 10:31 pm #2083755
And of course, you know that it wasn’t a clerk for one of the conservatives who was worried that his/her boss might change their mind and work with Roberts to find some compromise.
In any event, at least have the common sense to learn the meaning of “treason”. In the worse case, the legal violation here might be the theft of government property. There were no “national security” implications to a leak of a draft opinion on a social policy issue. The leak was stupid, a breach of trust and contrary to legal ethics, whether it was from the liberal or conservative side of the issue.May 6, 2022 10:30 am at 10:30 am #2083874
If it was a republican you would see everyone from Biden down to msnbc anchors talk about the leakerMay 6, 2022 10:31 am at 10:31 am #2083875
Let’s see you use that energy for when a SC Justice rules the way the dems like. Imagine if someone did that to RBG or in the future to Ketanji Jackson and planned to harass her at her house. They’d cry racism and sexism all day.May 6, 2022 11:25 am at 11:25 am #2083901
CA: More likely than not some misguided clerk for one of the liberals or even some jerk in the IT division that has access to the SCOTUS document library but I wouldn’t entirely rule out someone on the right fearful that Roberts could peel off ACB to a middle-ground position tightening Roe to 12 weeks or something like that. Then, of course, there was some whaacko on OAN Wednesday am who asserted that the new Justice KJ (who doesn’t even have a building pass yet) and won’t be sworn in to July had somehow breached security and leaked the draft Alito opinion.May 6, 2022 1:34 pm at 1:34 pm #2083924
Nowhere in your answer was there a reply to my comment that the MSM would have highlighted itMay 6, 2022 1:35 pm at 1:35 pm #2083928
GH doubtful. It’s a deep state hack. It’s someone from the white house. Otherwise we’d know the leaker. The dems are his whomever leaked it.May 6, 2022 4:38 pm at 4:38 pm #2084022hujuParticipant
May I suggest that we wait for the facts, lakewhut?May 6, 2022 5:07 pm at 5:07 pm #2084026Amil ZolaParticipant
A disconcerting happening but not criminal.May 6, 2022 6:17 pm at 6:17 pm #2084030
“A disconcerting happening but not criminal.“
What are you referring to?May 6, 2022 7:17 pm at 7:17 pm #2084034Amil ZolaParticipant
The leak. It’s disconcerting (to me) but not a criminal matter. You may choose to characterize the leak differently.May 6, 2022 7:23 pm at 7:23 pm #2084037
The leak is a criminal matter.May 6, 2022 7:26 pm at 7:26 pm #2084040
If the document was obtained illegally in any manner, such as through a hack, that itself is a criminal matter.
Even if it was not hacked, it is still a crime under U.S. Code Title 18, Section 641.May 8, 2022 2:43 pm at 2:43 pm #2084330
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has held an intangible item, like information, can be a “thing of value” under 18 U.S.C. §1030, and since the Supreme Court is located within the District of Columbia Circuit, this would be a chargeable offense.
Additionally, 18 U.S.C. §1001 makes it a federal offense to knowingly and willfully make a materially false statement “in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative or judicial branch of the Government of the United States … ” The chief justice could ask all the law clerks, and anyone else who had access to Alito’s draft opinion (less than 50 people in total), to sign a statement saying that they were not the source of the leak. Assuming that they all sign the statement denying being the source of the leak, the chief justice could then ask law enforcement agents to interview each of those individuals. If the interview exposes the leaker, that individual could be prosecuted for having made a false statement in the declaration.
In 1919, the Department of Justice indicted Ashton Embry, Justice Joseph McKenna’s law clerk, for sharing the court’s decisions with Wall Street traders before the decisions were officially released.
Another possibility is prosecution for so-called honest services fraud. As the Congressional Research Service has said, Congress amended 18 U.S.C. §1346, “which defines the crimes of mail and wire fraud,” to make clear that this statute extends “to conduct that deprives a person or group of the right to have another act in accordance with some externally imposed duty or obligation, regardless of whether the victim so deprived has suffered or would suffer a pecuniary harm.”
Another remote possibility is prosecution under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986, which is codified at 18 U.S.C. §1030. The act makes it a crime “to access a computer with authorization and to use such access to obtain or alter information in the computer that the accesser is not entitled so to obtain or alter.”May 8, 2022 3:26 pm at 3:26 pm #2084410unomminParticipant
18 USC 1507, i believe
ridiculous to believe it was anything other than the obvious – a leftist-activist clerk attempting to cause riots and intimidation of sitting justices.May 8, 2022 4:03 pm at 4:03 pm #2084442
My hunch is that the court realizes that making a ruckus about it this way, will defer the riot over the court’s decision. From what I read of it, this is not a full victory for the anti abortion camp. It is along the trajectory of the last twenty five years.
In short, this is an issue out of a tissue.May 8, 2022 5:04 pm at 5:04 pm #2084454
“….Ridiculous to believe it was anything other than the obvious – a leftist-activist clerk attempting to cause riots and intimidation of sitting justices.
Alternatively, Gini Thomas seeking to assure that none of her hubby’s colleagues get cold feetMay 8, 2022 6:03 pm at 6:03 pm #2084481
And then Gini found a leftist friend to sneak this to a leftist publication. If she were so skills, the congress would have kept Trump president on the 6thMay 8, 2022 11:24 pm at 11:24 pm #2084628
Sorry, almost no publication would have turned this down.May 9, 2022 12:11 am at 12:11 am #2084642
If the author or publisher commissioned a crime to obtain this document, the author and/or publisher should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.May 9, 2022 7:23 am at 7:23 am #2084659
I think the Court intentionally leaked it.May 9, 2022 7:24 am at 7:24 am #2084660
This looks like one more topic for the upcoming Republican congressional investigations after November. This is gonna to be one long dark winter. One minor nekuda I am interested in – who forced Pfizer to delay opening up spectacular Phase 3 results for after election.May 9, 2022 11:51 am at 11:51 am #2084825
I doubt any political personality has enough clout to force Pfizer to do or not do something.May 9, 2022 12:34 pm at 12:34 pm #2084836🍫Syag LchochmaParticipant
You are overlooking Pfizer being it’s own political personality. Follow the money/supportMay 9, 2022 1:27 pm at 1:27 pm #2084864
I’m not sure what you mean. If your saying that Pfizer has a higher political will than profits, I disagree. If your saying that Pfizer stood to gain by the political outcome, I agree with the premise. But I have no imagination of what the benefits could possibly be. If you mean that there is some politicians than can sway Pfizer, I think that that is totally untrue. I also know that my opinions on this are not well founded. It is nothing but my own assumptions.May 9, 2022 2:16 pm at 2:16 pm #2084909🍫Syag LchochmaParticipant
“If your saying that Pfizer stood to gain by the political outcome, I agree with the premise.”
“But I have no imagination of what the benefits could possibly be. ”
can’t speak for things that aren’t shared but imagine support, monetary and legal, from people who share many lines of support and income as you. I had a long talk with some pharmacy friends about some of this but I haven’t personally checked up on the theory with anyone at pfizer.
Also, wasn’t Trump trying to squash pharmaceutical price gauging?May 9, 2022 3:30 pm at 3:30 pm #2084938
[There is so much money here, that I do not see how who is President will impact it. As much money as can be thrown away, will. Who does the throwing is insignificant.]
Yes. It is mandatory lip service by every politician. Biden also mentions it. I think it was somewhere in the State of the Union address.May 9, 2022 7:25 pm at 7:25 pm #2085066
> I doubt any political personality has enough clout to force Pfizer
All I know is that (as was reported somewhat later and not well distributed) they reached pre-planned number of cases before the election and then someone, presumably from FDA, said that that it will be better to open it up with more cases to be more sure. This is all reading between lines of obscure explanations, I never read anyone fully explaining what happened. Maybe I missed it. If you saw it, please suggest where to find it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.