Hmmmm does this mean they have been leveraged by the white hats? And will now fly straight? or standard cover up?
Supreme Court Justices and Spouses Cleared in Leak Probe by Marshal
Supreme Court Marshal Gail A. Curley issued a statement Friday afternoon correcting a glaring omission in her report released Thursday on the leak last May 2nd of a draft ruling in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization abortion case. Curley’s initial report said the source of the leak had not been determined and that all court staff had denied being the leaker and had signed sworn affidavits to that effect. Not mentioned was any investigation of the Justices.
Friday’s statement by Curley clears up the omission but also indicates the Justices were were not held to the same standard as Court staff:
For Immediate Release
January 20, 2023
Statement from Marshal Gail A. Curley:
During the course of the investigation, I spoke with each of the Justices, several on multiple occasions. The Justices actively cooperated in this iterative process, asking questions and answering mine. I followed up on all credible leads, none of which implicated the Justices or their spouses. On this basis, I did not believe that it was necessary to ask the Justices to sign sworn affidavits.
Excerpt from the initial report:
The investigation has determined that it is unlikely that the Court’s information technology (IT) systems were improperly accessed by a person outside the Court. 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. They have conducted 126 formal interviews of 97 employees, all of whom denied disclosing the opinion. Despite these efforts, investigators have been unable to determine at this time, using a preponderance of the evidence standard, the identity of the person(s) who disclosed the draft majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org. or how the draft opinion was provided to Politico. Investigators continue to review and process some electronic data that has been collected and a few other inquiries remain pending. To the extent that additional investigation yields new evidence or leads, the investigators will pursue them.
…At the conclusion of the initial interviews, each employee was asked to sign an affidavit, under penalty of perjury, affirming that he or she did not disclose the Dobbs draft opinion to any person not employed by the Supreme Court, did not disclose to any person not employed by the Supreme Court any information relating to the Dobbs draft opinion not made public through means authorized by the Court, and had provided all of the pertinent information known to him or her relating to the disclosure or publication of the Dobbs draft opinion. Each employee was then asked to swear to the truth of the statements in the affidavit before a Notary Public. Each of these employees
signed a sworn affidavit. A few of those interviewed admitted to telling their spouses about the draft opinion or vote count, so they annotated their affidavits to that effect. If investigators later determine any personnel lied to the investigators, those personnel would be subject to prosecution for a false statement in violation of 18 USC § 1001.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/01/supreme-court-justices-spouses-cleared-leak-probe-marshal/