Will The Leaker Be Exposed

[Rightguide]

and if so, will they be prosecuted?

 

[ll74]

Under which statute?

 

[Wrong Element]

Exposed? Barring a decision to confess, probably not.

Prosecuted? No laws were broken here, just some of those precious "norms."

 

[Sean Renaud]

Them being exposed at worst will ruin their career.

 

[Rightguide]

Under which statute?

Well for openers we could try this one: 18 U.S.C. § 641 says it is a crime to ‘knowingly convert… any record’ of the United States for one’s personal use – including legal opinions,” “The penalty is 1 to 10 years in prison.”

Another option would be to require every employee of the SCOTUS to testify to and sign a sworn statement they did not mishandle, transmit, or communicate the draft opinion to any unauthorized person. Anyone found to be lying would be in violation of 18 USC § 1001. Anyone taking the Fifth should become the subject of further investigation.

In addition if anyone is harmed as a result of leak, the leaker could be criminally culpable.

 

[Rightguide]

Exposed? Barring a decision to confess, probably not.

Prosecuted? No laws were broken here, just some of those precious "norms."

Technically not true:

18 U.S. Code § 641 - Public money, property or records​

Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof; or

Whoever receives, conceals, or retains the same with intent to convert it to his use or gain, knowing it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; but if the value of such property in the aggregate, combining amounts from all the counts for which the defendant is convicted in a single case, does not exceed the sum of $1,000, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

 

[Paul_Chance]

Technically not true:

18 U.S. Code § 641 - Public money, property or records​

Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof; or

Whoever receives, conceals, or retains the same with intent to convert it to his use or gain, knowing it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; but if the value of such property in the aggregate, combining amounts from all the counts for which the defendant is convicted in a single case, does not exceed the sum of $1,000, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

That won't apply (though I have seen it floated online). The legal phrase "conversion" applies when a person takes some object, such as a public record or good, and then "converts" it to their own benefit, usually by selling it or altering it or simply using it for personal profit. I've seen people charge under this statute for selling access to government records though (more commonly though, they're charged with bribery).

There has been no accusation of such levied (much less proven) in this case, without stretching the law. You usually see this type of charge when a person takes monies, property, etc., and then either just keeps it or sells it. Now, if it comes out that Politico paid them for it, then you could charge them with conversion - but, it's just unlikely Politico was that careless.

At a minimum, they violated their employers trust, which is cause for dismissal, but legally that's about it (with more to come out later I am sure). There is no specific law that applies to leaking court documents. In fact, in the 19th Century is was not uncommon for the Justices to release their writings on a hot button issue prior to rendering judgement, for a variety of reasons. (All those arguments of "unprecedented" are not correct.)

I do think they'll figure out who did it pretty quickly, and unless it was a Justice themselves (or done at the direction of a Justice), it'll end someone's career - or catapult them into a cushy law firm as a famous lawyer.

 

[ll74]

At most, the leaker will be fired.

Righties just want to play the victim....always. it gives them votes.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

The WSJ reports this morning that the question of whether any laws were broken by the leaker remains unclear. Also unclear if the Supreme Court Marshall has subpoena power. It’s never been tested. And if no law applies to the link, the subpoena power question gets even muddier. We may never know who did it. Maybe there will be a deathbed confession decades from now.

 

[phrodeau]

At most, the leaker will be fired.

Unless it was Ginni Thomas.

 

[Rightguide]

That won't apply (though I have seen it floated online). The legal phrase "conversion" applies when a person takes some object, such as a public record or good, and then "converts" it to their own benefit, usually by selling it or altering it or simply using it for personal profit. I've seen people charge under this statute for selling access to government records though (more commonly though, they're charged with bribery).

There has been no accusation of such levied (much less proven) in this case, without stretching the law. You usually see this type of charge when a person takes monies, property, etc., and then either just keeps it or sells it. Now, if it comes out that Politico paid them for it, then you could charge them with conversion - but, it's just unlikely Politico was that careless.

At a minimum, they violated their employers trust, which is cause for dismissal, but legally that's about it (with more to come out later I am sure). There is no specific law that applies to leaking court documents. In fact, in the 19th Century is was not uncommon for the Justices to release their writings on a hot button issue prior to rendering judgement, for a variety of reasons. (All those arguments of "unprecedented" are not correct.)

I do think they'll figure out who did it pretty quickly, and unless it was a Justice themselves (or done at the direction of a Justice), it'll end someone's career - or catapult them into a cushy law firm as a famous lawyer.

I was asked to provide a statute and I thought this one might apply, but alas I'm not a lawyer. Okay so, the draft wasn't stolen, purloined, or embezzled, for the use of another, in this case the Reporter?

Personally, I have no trust in the DOJ pursuing this event with any rigor unless it is revealed the perpetrator is someone from the right who was attempting to lock in the votes of any majority Justice who may have been wavering in support of the decision. Already we see the WH spokesperson failing to express any condemnation of the leak, and the leaker being celebrated on the left as a hero. Sadly, I suspect our fabled two-tiered justice system just may be on the verge of exposing itself once again.

 

[jason28053]

It was Chief Justice Roberts

 

[Wrong Element]

I am noting a good deal of confidence here that the leaker "must have been" one of the liberal justices or (much more likely) their clerks (otherwise, there wouldn't be all this bluster about people going to prison). Maybe so, but I am seeing a lot of skepticism this is the case.

 

[icanhelp1]

I was asked to provide a statute and I thought this one might apply, but alas I'm not a lawyer. Okay so, the draft wasn't stolen, purloined, or embezzled, for the use of another, in this case the Reporter?

Personally, I have no trust in the DOJ pursuing this event with any rigor unless it is revealed the perpetrator is someone from the right who was attempting to lock in the votes of any majority Justice who may have been wavering in support of the decision. Already we see the WH spokesperson failing to express any condemnation of the leak, and the leaker being celebrated on the left as a hero. Sadly, I suspect our fabled two-tiered justice system just may be on the verge of exposing itself once again.

There's still the the issue did the leaker receive compensation of some sort. Maybe Politico paid the individual. There's the issue did the leaker download from a computer where access was unauthorized. Did the leaker conspire with politico prior to obtaining the document.

 

[Paul_Chance]

I was asked to provide a statute and I thought this one might apply, but alas I'm not a lawyer. Okay so, the draft wasn't stolen, purloined, or embezzled, for the use of another, in this case the Reporter?

Personally, I have no trust in the DOJ pursuing this event with any rigor unless it is revealed the perpetrator is someone from the right who was attempting to lock in the votes of any majority Justice who may have been wavering in support of the decision. Already we see the WH spokesperson failing to express any condemnation of the leak, and the leaker being celebrated on the left as a hero. Sadly, I suspect our fabled two-tiered justice system just may be on the verge of exposing itself once again.

The press is well protected by the First Amendment when it comes to publishing leaked information, with narrow exceptions for defamation and libel, neither of which applies in this case. The DOJ may be involved in looking at potential prosecution, if specifically invited in, but there's really nothing (publicly available) that indicates a crime was committed. (That's what cuts both ways, both sides, on the prosecution front - an accusation by a third party of a crime doesn't mean, in any way, shape or form, that a crime has occurred. We've seen it a hundred times in the "Obama's Guilty of...", "Trumps Guilty of...". "Bidens Guilty of..." pronouncements and then...no case.)

It is remotely possible that there is an underlying minor crime, depending on how the individual got the copy and how far they went to get the copy. (e.g. if the leaker was not an employee of the court and gained access to the document by sneaking in and stealing it).

It is typical though, again from all sides of the political spectrum "Good for us, nothing to see here. Bad for us, it's treason!"). At the end of the day, cooler heads do get their say most of the time. Prosecutors, in general, are good at what they do.

From an investigation standpoint, this a fairly simple investigation - depending on how good the Justice's and their staff's are at handling draft information. A limited set of suspects, timing and access will point the investigator down a pretty narrow path. If the document was provided electronically, there is a footprint of it leaving the system. If the document was provided in hard copy, that's a pretty narrow footprint as well (who printed it out, how were the print copies handled). Everyone assumes an intentional leak, but it remains within the realm of possibility at this point that was a lost document. (e.g. a clerk popped in their briefcase to read home, stopped at Starbucks, then accidentally left it behind, where someone picked it up, recognized it, and called their buddy the reporter, who referred them to his or her buddy at Politico.) I'd assume the Court has good computer techs (an assumption on my part I realize) and that they're checking the footprint as we speak.

 

[justmethatswho]

Yes, whoever leaked this should be exposed, which will pretty much render their law career over. Though, to the base of which is pleased, this person is a hero. To many times an individual thinks ones own beliefs and ideas are more important than the standards and ethics of which they are expected to work under. For those in DC, it would seam that politics is always the factor involved. Leaks often are done, to further their political agenda without regard to the good of society.

At minimum the individual who leaked this, should be terminated. If applicable the person should be prosecuted.

 

[icanhelp1]

Yes, whoever leaked this should be exposed, which will pretty much render their law career over. Though, to the base of which is pleased, this person is a hero. To many times an individual thinks ones own beliefs and ideas are more important than the standards and ethics of which they are expected to work under. For those in DC, it would seam that politics is always the factor involved. Leaks often are done, to further their political agenda without regard to the good of society.

At minimum the individual who leaked this, should be terminated. If applicable the person should be prosecuted.

Just like the disgraced LTC Vindman this leaker will be celebrated by the left as a hero. RG is correct we have a two tier DOJ, a corrupt extension of the Biden administration

 

[BluesDriver66]

Anything not a national security issue should be available for inspection by the citizens and taxpayers. Anything less is secret government. If you receive a government pay check you are an employee of the citizens. The idea that employers cannot inspect the work of it's employees, at any time, is patently absurd.

 

[Rightguide]

Well, I guess we shouldn't be surprised. We've witnessed many of our institutions crumble before the ideology of the left. We've seen our government institutions, protected only by an oath of fidelity, laughingly breached by unprincipled radicals bent on tearing it all down. So, who's next?

 

[ll74]

Well, I guess we shouldn't be surprised. We've witnessed many of our institutions crumble before the ideology of the left. We've seen our government institutions, protected only by an oath of fidelity, laughingly breached by unprincipled radicals bent on tearing it all down. So, who's next?

Well, I guess all that's left is you whining about your pitiful hatred of your political opposition online

Good thing you have that covered

 

[ll74]

Cokehead has the same questions

https://twitter.com/x/status/1521880440293974016

 

[LukSkyFokker]

You would think that he would be able to maintain some composure on that shit by now. Fucker's septum must look like the Lincon Tunnel.

 

[Philthy_Phil]

Cokehead has the same questions

https://twitter.com/x/status/1521880440293974016

Joke's on him. It's been a clown show for many years.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

I am noting a good deal of confidence here that the leaker "must have been" one of the liberal justices or (much more likely) their clerks (otherwise, there wouldn't be all this bluster about people going to prison). Maybe so, but I am seeing a lot of skepticism this is the case.

It’s difficult to think of a motive anyone associated with the originalist side would have.

 

[coati]

In general, a leaker will only be exposed if he whips it out in public. If he's by himself, there is nobody to be offended, so technically he is not "exposed" while taking a leak.