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.
Foist!
Just 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).
“On this basis, I did not believe that it was necessary to ask the Justices to sign sworn affidavits.”
And with this statement my head explodes.
“During the course of the investigation, I spoke with each of the Justices”
“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?
“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.”
Which clearly, apparently, didn’t apply to the justices, though it did to everyone else.
Equal justice under the law, my eyeball.
BREAKING: Investigators Fail to Question Foxes in Henhouse Massacre.
If the justices were telling the truth they would be more than willing to sign sworn statement. On the other hand…………
On the other hand, if they were asked softball questions that tap-danced around the actual issue(s), there’s no reason for them to have sign anything.
Like I said, there’s no record of what they were asked.
The Marshall looked each one in the eye and could tell they were being completely truthful and neither they nor their spouses played any part in the leaked draft.
Mmmn, no, I don’t think so. A precedent of exposing justices to investigations’ perjury traps would be set. They’ll cling to their immunity until something like the murder of a clerk in chambers happens. And even there some would go for the “Don’t you know who I am?” stiff-arm.
Would it matter if they signed Sworn Affidavits? The swear an oath to the constitution and disregard it at will, and nothing happens. Also they all lie during their Senate hearings when they have sworn not to. Why should this be any different
“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.”
Roberts: Good morning Ms. Curley. How are you doing today?
Marshal: Very good, how about yourself?
Roberts: Well the day’s just getting started! Say, have you found the person who leaked the Dobbs opinion yet?
Marshal: Nope, still looking.
Roberts: Well you let me know right away if you ever figure it out.
Marshal: Yes sir! Oh look, here comes Justice Alito . . .
Let’s say one (lets call him Justice Polito) states under oath he had nothing to do with the leak, and later incontrovertible evidence emerges that he totally leaked it: email trail, witnesses including his own clerks, on camera, in camera, yadda yadda. What happens next? Why, the GOP House impeaches the next week and the Senate totally convicts and removes with well over 67 votes. Bwahaha! Pull the other one.
How about Marshal Gail turns this over to the FBI? Gonna happen? NOPE.
The Marshal’s team was not able to identify a suspect.
Well, then, there’s only one remaining possibility: The source of the leak was the Marshal, herself!
This situation reminds me of George Orwell’s Animal Farm.
“All animals are equal but some are more equal than others.”
The FBI will ask what crime has occurred.
That’s great!
If you like American Psycho and Talking Heads as much as I do, then you might like this terrific NSFW Miles Fisher cover:
Excellence, monsieur Poirot.