The Supreme Court Marshal said Friday that she did speak with the justices during her investigation into the source of the Dobbs leak, but that she did not ask them to sign sworn affidavits.
“During the course of the investigation, I spoke with each of the Justices, several on multiple occasions,” Marshal Gail Curley said in a statement. “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,” she added. “On this basis, I did not believe that it was necessary to ask the Justices to sign sworn affidavits.”
It was not made explicit in the report, released Thursday, whether she’d investigated the justices, as it largely referred to those investigated as “employees” and “personnel.” The Marshal’s team was not able to identify a suspect.
The other Court personnel investigated were not given the same pass as the justices.
“Another statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1001 [False Official Statements], has become important to the investigation since all personnel who had access to the draft opinion signed sworn affidavits affirming they did not disclose the draft opinion nor know anything about who did,” the report said. “If the investigators determine any of these personnel lied, they could be subject to prosecution.”
Chief Justice John Roberts ordered the investigation after Politico published the leaked draft opinion, authored by Justice Samuel Alito and overturning Roe v. Wade, in May 2022.
Foist!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_HNpheUjBUJust another example of the SC guys/gals not having to live by a written & enforced ethics code. They are, apparently, supreme beings beyond the regulatory necessities that exist for the rest of us. The interlocutor/marshal assumes that they never lie and that they are always right(eous).
And with this statement my head explodes.
“What are your clerks’ names?”
“Thank you, that will be all.”
And I don’t imagine any of these interviews were recorded.
So, how do we know if the appropriate questions were even asked? And why would any of the justices be asking questions?
Which clearly, apparently, didn’t apply to the justices, though it did to everyone else.
Equal justice under the law, my eyeball.