Jonathan Turley says the SCOTUS report about Dobbs leak 'is almost as chilling as the leak itself'

As Twitchy just reported, the Supreme Court has issued its report on its investigation to find the person who leaked the draft Dobbs decision to the public, and it came up short: the court was unable to find the person, with the caveat that the justices did not investigate themselves or their spouses.

How many people could it have possibly been? We were told just how tightly the court controls the handling of such documents. There are only so many clerks who would have handled such a thing.

Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley says the court’s inability to find the leaker is “almost as chilling as the leak itself.”

The Supreme Court's report indicates that they cannot isolate the culprit among the over 80 possible suspects for the Dobbs leak. It is an admission that is almost as chilling as the leak itself…

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) January 19, 2023

…It will likely revive concerns over whether the FBI should have been asked to take the lead on the investigation. The Court is only a few blocks from the world's leading forensic investigatory body…

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) January 19, 2023

…What is clear is that any hope for a deterrent on such unethical conduct has been dramatically reduced. Thus far, the culprit succeeded in not just leaking the opinion but evading detection…

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) January 19, 2023

…The proposed changes in security are unlikely to meaningfully reduce the danger of such leaks. The nature of the Court's work requires a free flow of drafts and memoranda. That is why we hope to achieve through deterrence what was not achieved through ethics…

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) January 19, 2023

…In this age of rage, this danger will only grow. Someone felt that they had license to leak. Some others may now feel that they have the impunity to do so. https://t.co/2rggctrUQm

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) January 19, 2023

Recommended

'You'll See Things Our Way': Jaguar DOUBLES DOWN on Cringe Ad With Vaguely Threatening Reply to Critics

Amy Curtis

Advertisement

Reportedly, all of the suspects signed affidavits swearing they were not the ones who leaked the draft, which kicked off the “day of rage” marathon and protests in front of justices’ homes.

Exactly. I’ll never trust anything that comes out of that building again if they can’t do something as simple as protect the sanctity and security of that institution.

— @Matthew Betley 🇺🇸 (@MatthewBetley) January 19, 2023

So, that means 80+ people had access to the file?

— Casa Conti (@JamesConti1953) January 19, 2023

It should have been classified Top Secret. The decision would have…no, wait!

— Casa Conti (@JamesConti1953) January 19, 2023

My opinion: “They” know who leaked, but do not want “us” to know.

How could they not know? #RealQuestion

— Kim D (@_Kim37) January 19, 2023

Pretty obviously it's one of the justices, they can't reveal who unless they have red handed, indisputable evidence which they probably lack, so here we are. Beyer, Sotomayor or Kagan, pretty short list.

— Mark Wahlstrom (@MarkWahlstrom) January 19, 2023

They know.

— 😎 Cabo Girl 😎 (@colsiegirl) January 19, 2023

They don’t want to know. It’s obvious.

— larmanius (@larmanius) January 19, 2023

Another sad day for this once great nation. Is it me or does anyone else think our finest days are way behind us?

— Paul McPherson (@PaulScottMc) January 19, 2023

I don’t believe them. Governmental institutions are failing in the area of transparency and accountability as well as party neutrality…

— Judy Brinkley ❤️🙏❤️ (@asilentpreacher) January 19, 2023

I other words they know who leaked it and are giving that person a pass

— Deb (@Deb61397511) January 19, 2023

This is a scam, an attempt to paper over a major transgression. Cell phone records would be enough to identify the culprit. Even anonymized data can be used to correctly identify someone with 90% accuracy with but 4 random pieces of info. Sad fact: the FBI and SCOTUS said "No!"

— R2S (@Ryno_Report) January 19, 2023

What matters is that the leaker is still there and apparently will face no consequences, which as Turley says, fails to provide any deterrent.

***

Join us in the fight. Become a Twitchy VIP member today and use promo code SAVEAMERICA to receive a 40% discount on your membership.

Related:

SCOTUS comes up short investigating Dobbs opinion leaker (thread)https://t.co/atrm0ZQd9U

— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) January 19, 2023