Potential Criminal Liability of Leaker

dailybuck777

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2018
10,481
14,444
1
This article discusses various avenues by which the leaker could be criminally prosecuted. https://reason.com/volokh/2022/05/03/could-supreme-court-leaker-be-criminally-prosecuted-maybe/

One that is interesting to me is "conversion of government property or governmental "things of value." The federal government has successfully prosecuted some leakers under this statute, but the federal circuit courts of appeal disagree about whether, and what, information can be a "thing of value." I think this should be applicable to the Mueller persecutors who wiped their phones -- the information on their phones is govt property and they have no right to delete it.
 

LafayetteBear

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2009
46,611
20,656
1
It should not have happened, and I hope it does not foreshadow future leaks. The Justices and their law clerks and staff have ALWAYS been staunch supporters of the institution and traditions of the Court, regardless of their political viewpoint. I hope that continues.
 

ao5884

Well-Known Member
Oct 1, 2019
6,719
6,424
1
This article discusses various avenues by which the leaker could be criminally prosecuted. https://reason.com/volokh/2022/05/03/could-supreme-court-leaker-be-criminally-prosecuted-maybe/

One that is interesting to me is "conversion of government property or governmental "things of value." The federal government has successfully prosecuted some leakers under this statute, but the federal circuit courts of appeal disagree about whether, and what, information can be a "thing of value." I think this should be applicable to the Mueller persecutors who wiped their phones -- the information on their phones is govt property and they have no right to delete it.
Yeah this is leaking a SCOTUS ruling. It's not as if the justices did something illegal. They did what they are supposed to do interpret the constitution Whether you agree or not with the decision. It's probably not a good idea to set a precedent of allowing this to go unpunished.
 

ao5884

Well-Known Member
Oct 1, 2019
6,719
6,424
1
It should not have happened, and I hope it does not foreshadow future leaks. The Justices and their law clerks and staff have ALWAYS been staunch supporters of the institution and traditions of the Court, regardless of their political viewpoint. I hope that continues.
To me it has to be someone that works rather closely with A justice or Justices right? I don't think they leave decision summaries just laying around everywhere...but I could be wrong
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

nitanee123

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2001
5,608
2,149
1
In the end, the person will get hired by some Ivy League as a professor of ethics or some other b.s. Planned Parenhood will give him/her a seat on the board and he/she will get a sweet $$ book deal. Probably get a statue out of it to too.
 

interrobang

Well-Known Member
Aug 21, 2016
20,340
28,450
1
It's entirely possible that the actual decision will be to uphold RvW so someone leaked an old draft version for political gain.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
4,454
9,370
1
This has Sotomayer chambers written all over it.

Sotomayor has and Breyer had hard-core lib ideologues on their staffs with at least indirect ties to Josh Gerstein whose byline appears on the Politico piece.

This is not complicated. The Dem-Mediacrats on the Court had obvious motives to do this, and the Dem-Media Party long ago exempted itself from the ordinary rules of protocol and law.

Therefore, this destructive leak, which is devastating to the functioning of the Court, came from the Dem-Mediacrat wing. If it walks like a duck...and so forth.

Plus here's a predictive indicator: the culprit will never be found. The Powers and their media arm will close ranks to protect a Dem-Mediacrat. That's just standard procedure. So we'll get the pretense of an investigation, but it will come to nothing. It's a familiar drill.
 

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
22,951
25,758
1
An altered state
Sotomayor has and Breyer had hard-core lib ideologues on their staffs with at least indirect ties to Josh Gerstein whose byline appears on the Politico piece.

This is not complicated. The Dem-Mediacrats on the Court had obvious motives to do this, and the Dem-Media Party long ago exempted itself from the ordinary rules of protocol and law.

Therefore, this destructive leak, which is devastating to the functioning of the Court, came from the Dem-Mediacrat wing. If it walks like a duck...and so forth.

Plus here's a predictive indicator: the culprit will never be found. The Powers and their media arm will close ranks to protect a Dem-Mediacrat. That's just standard procedure. So we'll get the pretense of an investigation, but it will come to nothing. It's a familiar drill.
One other possibility is that was one of the ‘intel’ agencies. Methinks the SCOTUS justices have been using the internet for their work. At least one worked from home during a Covid spell. If they are emailing various drafts and opinions or using some document sharing software someone could have hacked their system and captured the draft.

The CIA, FBI, and others were involved in the fake Russiagate attempted coup. And that set a precedent of interfering in politics way beyond any prior attempts that we knew about. So now that that type of BS is SOP maybe someone or a couple people in those agencies toook it upon themselves to leak this.

After all, some one was leaking transcripts of Trump’s phone calls to the President of Mexico and others. The Russia gate scam. Covering up for the Hildebeast. Or covering up for WassermanSchultz and her Pakistanni friends.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

Aardvark86

Well-Known Member
Jan 23, 2018
7,451
7,274
1
Sotomayor has and Breyer had hard-core lib ideologues on their staffs with at least indirect ties to Josh Gerstein whose byline appears on the Politico piece.

This is not complicated. The Dem-Mediacrats on the Court had obvious motives to do this, and the Dem-Media Party long ago exempted itself from the ordinary rules of protocol and law.

Therefore, this destructive leak, which is devastating to the functioning of the Court, came from the Dem-Mediacrat wing. If it walks like a duck...and so forth.

Plus here's a predictive indicator: the culprit will never be found. The Powers and their media arm will close ranks to protect a Dem-Mediacrat. That's just standard procedure. So we'll get the pretense of an investigation, but it will come to nothing. It's a familiar drill.
Personally, I think there’s an equal probability of this being someone at gpo. (scotus actually typesets - it’s beautiful to behold). The risks are just so high for a person with, frankly, not that much upside.

I suspect they will identify the culprit, but we may never hear about it as internal court discipline may stay internal.
 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
59,587
34,877
1
This article discusses various avenues by which the leaker could be criminally prosecuted. https://reason.com/volokh/2022/05/03/could-supreme-court-leaker-be-criminally-prosecuted-maybe/

One that is interesting to me is "conversion of government property or governmental "things of value." The federal government has successfully prosecuted some leakers under this statute, but the federal circuit courts of appeal disagree about whether, and what, information can be a "thing of value." I think this should be applicable to the Mueller persecutors who wiped their phones -- the information on their phones is govt property and they have no right to delete it.
If a democrat leaked the information the investigation will determine that they were "extremely careless". If a republican leaked the information they might be sentenced to 20 years.
 

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
103,140
56,092
1
It should not have happened, and I hope it does not foreshadow future leaks. The Justices and their law clerks and staff have ALWAYS been staunch supporters of the institution and traditions of the Court, regardless of their political viewpoint. I hope that continues.

Most of us hope that continues, but phucking democrats are bent on destroying these institutions.
 

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
4,454
9,370
1
Personally, I think there’s an equal probability of this being someone at gpo. (scotus actually typesets - it’s beautiful to behold). The risks are just so high for a person with, frankly, not that much upside.

I suspect they will identify the culprit, but we may never hear about it as internal court discipline may stay internal.

Aard, anything is possible. Therefore, GPO is possible. Or the Deep State scenario that Spin offers above is possible. Or the convoluted theory that it goes back to the Republican wing of the Court trying to "lock down" a 5th vote...or shame a conservative Justice.

But in my view, one should not focus on exotic explanations when more obvious ones are immediately at hand and on their face more plausible.

Leave aside the connections of Sotomayor and Breyer clerks to Gerstein...or the fact that Dem-Mediacrats believe their enlightened causes put them above the law...and just ask the one question that any detective will tell you is most often controlling in whodunits: Cui bono? Who benefits?

The answer, as outlined in the four factors listed in my iniitial response to the original thread, is crystal clear: Dem-Media on a number of fronts. Moreover, Dem-Media knows that at the end of the day, it controls the investigative organs and the propaganda machine (aka: Media) that will reliably spin the Party's favored narrative.

Does any of this categorically prove the case? No. But to me, it means the probability that the leak has Dem-Media fingerprints is northward of 90%.
 

LafayetteBear

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2009
46,611
20,656
1
To me it has to be someone that works rather closely with A justice or Justices right? I don't think they leave decision summaries just laying around everywhere...but I could be wrong
The fact that the leak occurred disturbs me FAR more than anything that is in the draft (and I repeat, draft) opinion that was leaked. The circulation of draft opinions is part of the Court's deliberative process, and it needs to occur without the severely negative impact of public scrutiny.

I read a column this morning by Noah Feldman, a Harvard law professor and former law clerk to Justice Souter, that explains better than I can why this leak is so damaging to the Court. Here it is, and ignore that "Are you a robot" verbiage in the link. It should open up without a problem. Let me know if it does not.

 
Last edited:

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
22,951
25,758
1
An altered state
That was some sleuthing. If it was her she threw away her law career. But do not feel bad for her at all. She will become a martyr to The Cause. A true hero with all the perks of such. She will get a book deal, be an ‘analyst’ for one of the alphabet networks, be on the speakers tour especially college campii. She will end up making far more money and probably end up being legged to Congress as soon as she finds some wacko district that loves her.
 

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
4,454
9,370
1
That was some sleuthing. If it was her she threw away her law career. But do not feel bad for her at all. She will become a martyr to The Cause. A true hero with all the perks of such. She will get a book deal, be an ‘analyst’ for one of the alphabet networks, be on the speakers tour especially college campii. She will end up making far more money and probably end up being legged to Congress as soon as she finds some wacko district that loves her.

She will incur no penalty at all. It's become a rule of Sacred Amerikan Democracy: Dem-Mediacrats are above the law because their cause is righteous...in their eyes...and that's the main thing because they're, like, superior beings and all. Everyone says so.

Meanwhile, Politico apparently has just deleted a picture of Gerstein (the main author of the leaked draft) in company with the young Wokeist woman in question. Gosh knows why Politico would do that:

 

NJPSU

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
42,560
14,573
1
Sotomayor has and Breyer had hard-core lib ideologues on their staffs with at least indirect ties to Josh Gerstein whose byline appears on the Politico piece.

This is not complicated. The Dem-Mediacrats on the Court had obvious motives to do this, and the Dem-Media Party long ago exempted itself from the ordinary rules of protocol and law.

Therefore, this destructive leak, which is devastating to the functioning of the Court, came from the Dem-Mediacrat wing. If it walks like a duck...and so forth.

Plus here's a predictive indicator: the culprit will never be found. The Powers and their media arm will close ranks to protect a Dem-Mediacrat. That's just standard procedure. So we'll get the pretense of an investigation, but it will come to nothing. It's a familiar drill.
It’s just hilarious that you guys cheered Trump on as he tried to destroy just about every institution our country held dear. Now suddenly one leak from the Supreme Court is catastrophic and you can’t stop the tears from flowing. It’s just pathetic.
 

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
103,140
56,092
1
It’s just hilarious that you guys cheered Trump on as he tried to destroy just about every institution our country held dear. Now suddenly one leak from the Supreme Court is catastrophic and you can’t stop the tears from flowing. It’s just pathetic.

LOL... You are making a fool of yourself.

Let the big boys talk. You watch.
 

ao5884

Well-Known Member
Oct 1, 2019
6,719
6,424
1
The fact that the leak occurred disturbs me FAR more than anything that is in the draft (and I repeat, draft) opinion that was leaked. The circulation of draft opinions is part of the Court's deliberative process, and it needs to occur without the severely negative impact of public scrutiny.

I read a column this morning by Noah Feldman, a Harvard law professor and former law clerk to Justice Souter, that explains better than I can why this leak is so damaging to the Court. Here it is, and ignore that "Are you a robot" verbiage in the link. It should open up without a problem. Let me know if it does not.

Good lord we agree on sumthin....let me check...Pigs are flying to hell for a ski trip.
 

BW Lion

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2020
5,052
6,127
1
The fact that the leak occurred disturbs me FAR more than anything that is in the draft (and I repeat, draft) opinion that was leaked. The circulation of draft opinions is part of the Court's deliberative process, and it needs to occur without the severely negative impact of public scrutiny.

I read a column this morning by Noah Feldman, a Harvard law professor and former law clerk to Justice Souter, that explains better than I can why this leak is so damaging to the Court. Here it is, and ignore that "Are you a robot" verbiage in the link. It should open up without a problem. Let me know if it does not.

Good info share. That was actually a well written and reason article.

It’s kinda scary how quickly you are learning this cyber-thingy, but to your discredit you did, earlier today, post* an article from Xfinity.com

old habits die hard 🙄

* on the new board
 
  • Haha
Reactions: The Spin Meister

Hotshoe

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Feb 15, 2012
25,033
40,500
1
Polico should also be ashamed for printing the article. This is what leads me to believe it was someone on the left. I never thought someone from Breyers camp would do this. However, he is leaving, and maybe that's why. If so, the person should be tarred and feathered for tarnishing his lifetime of work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ski

Aardvark86

Well-Known Member
Jan 23, 2018
7,451
7,274
1
Aard, anything is possible. Therefore, GPO is possible. Or the Deep State scenario that Spin offers above is possible. Or the convoluted theory that it goes back to the Republican wing of the Court trying to "lock down" a 5th vote...or shame a conservative Justice.

But in my view, one should not focus on exotic explanations when more obvious ones are immediately at hand and on their face more plausible.

Leave aside the connections of Sotomayor and Breyer clerks to Gerstein...or the fact that Dem-Mediacrats believe their enlightened causes put them above the law...and just ask the one question that any detective will tell you is most often controlling in whodunits: Cui bono? Who benefits?

The answer, as outlined in the four factors listed in my iniitial response to the original thread, is crystal clear: Dem-Media on a number of fronts. Moreover, Dem-Media knows that at the end of the day, it controls the investigative organs and the propaganda machine (aka: Media) that will reliably spin the Party's favored narrative.

Does any of this categorically prove the case? No. But to me, it means the probability that the leak has Dem-Media fingerprints is northward of 90%.
As I said equal probability. But note, re occam razor approach, there actually is some precedent for a gpo leak.

as for the Twitter feed, interesting and fun, but a serious “first draw the curves then plot the data” feel to it.
 
Last edited:

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
4,454
9,370
1
Good lord we agree on sumthin....let me check...Pigs are flying to hell for a ski trip.

Agreed. On those rare occasions when Laf gets something right, he should be commended for it... ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ski