Supreme Court leak investigation heats up as clerks are asked for phone records in unprecedented move
- Thread starter biggreydogs
- Start date
While I have no doubt that the Chief and the Marshall will fully respect the choice of a clerk(s) to engage counsel in connection with the matter, I also suspect that (i) in most cases, any concerns will be dealt with through protective order-like commitments, (ii) most clerks will comply, given that as luck would have it, it is just about the time that a clerk will be eligible to entertain offers of employment from outside firms, with the accompanying $400K signing bonus (you heard that right), and (iii) some clerks who do not comply may find themselves not receiving offers with $400k signing bonuses.
No one with a brain would keep a record of those calls in their phone...
Can we have Supreme Court justices turn over their phone records too? That only seems fair.
We don't know whether they have, or will be requested to in the future. In terms of the real way that internal investigations work, you don't usually start at the top.
Cool. I bet the stuff on Clarence's phone would make the hair on your neck stand up.
The justices weren't the leakers. Stay on point. Why would they turn over their phone records? They are not under investigation except in the twisted minds of the 'fetus is just a blob of cells' crowd that is pissed about the expected ruling to come.
Why only the 36 Clerks? How about brief printers? Judicial staff? Custodians? How about the Justices spouses?
At least 90 people had prior access.
Last edited:
Red, blue, purple, pink, orange is the new black, don't care who this person is but I do want to know who leaked.
We have zero reason to rule out one of the justices or at least they directed a clerk to skip so for them for deniability. Or someone acted on their own. No idea at this point.
Wouldn’t the cell carriers themselves have the data? I always assumed they did.
I don't pretend to know all of the ins and outs of federal employee investigations, or whether the terms of employment for scotus clerks mirror those of executive or legislative branch employees, but my basic understanding is that subject to a miranda-lite type of warning (which does not include a right of silence), employees can be required to answer questions in non criminal administrative investigations, just as they can in the private sector.
That's why the timing is interesting here. Many of these clerkships will end shortly. So, in theory, a clerk could defer/delay to try to run out the clock before employment/administrative action could be taken. But that wouldn't be too good of an idea in practice, as I'm sure that the justices have ways of making their views of candidates known to prospective employers, who I'm pretty sure would take a call from the Chief.
Last edited:
it would not surprise me if what the marshall is actually requesting is the clerks' consent to get that data from the carriers. Remember, this is not the fbi. this is an internal judicial branch investigation, not subject to the subpoena power.
yeah, i suspect a lot of catholic websites would make the hair of people on this board stand up.
Based on Eric Snowden I bet somebody already knows but they need to go through the motions legally. Reverse engineering the truth.
The rationale for confidential decisionmaking by justices in connection with cases, if that is what you are referring to, is that confidentiality facilitates and environment allowing full and frank discussion of the issues. That shouldn't be particularly surprising or revolutionary to anyone, in any setting. Indeed, it's the same reason we have things like the attorney-client privilege, the physician-patient privilege, the priest-penitent privilege, or if you like the executive branch, the deliberative process privilege. Collaterally, by the way, it also has a nice benefit of foreclosing rampant speculation in economic markets based on pending cases. Finally, it's really no different than the way other branches of government do their jobs. Legislative "hearings" and floor debates are really little more than kibuki; the real work gets done in back rooms that are invitation only.
If on the other hand you are referring to the secrecy of the internal investigation, there is of course an additional rationale - protecting innocent witnesses. And again, it's no different from private sector internal investigations.
Thanks. I meant what you assumed and answered in your first paragraph. You are correct that it is not particularly surprising. That question was mostly setting the stage for my second question which I think is the more interesting one. This whole thing has me questioning the appropriate scope of SC privileges. Having myself worked for a community TV station tasked with broadcasting public proceeds, I know there is supposed to be a well-defined line of what is “open” and what is “closed”. It was often very apparent that much of the real work was done in the dark, so to speak—maybe to everyone’s detriment.
That’s why I would not be shocked if Ginni Thomas leaked it.
It was one of sotemayer clerks.
Pretty well known.
That is not what they signed up for. It will be interesting to see how those clerks handle this. I would get a lawyer. Also I believe it wasn't a clerk who leaked it. It was a justice.
Well, I guess there will be no need for an investigation. LOL.
Anyone that ever turns over their phone data without a proper subpoena....is an idiot
And anywho who isn’t using a burner phone is an even bigger idiot.
Has The Wire not taught us anything?
I will be shocked if any of the 36 clerks (or any other staff who had access to the opinion) hand over their personal phone records. Also, this investigation is not a normal function of the Marshal's office. I would not trust their ability to conduct a proper investigation. Unless the leaker was sloppy, it is unlikely they will ever determine the leaker's identity.
Plus, think about your personal stuff on your phones. Heeellll no!
If it is pretty well known you’d be linking some supporting article. Your Facebook feed isn’t definitive, just an FYI.
It is as likely that a conservative leaked it as that a liberal did. To me it’s more likely a conservative did thinking they could box in a squishy vote. Robert’s is clearly wanting to preserve a fig leaf of Roe. Alito and Thomas want to smash Roe, and every other non enumerated right to pieces. Except all the gun stuff. A lib leaking the draft alienates the conservative that Roberts is trying to persuade to join him in the middle.
It is assumed that the leak was done for political purposes, but it could have been for the usual reason, money. I imagine Politico was willing to pay for the draft opinion, which was a feather in their cap. If so, it was probably some staff person who had access to the opinion, and not a clerk. A clerk would not risk their law career.
IDK. I have seen former clerks on TV say access to the opinions and drafts are tightly controlled. Even a hack is unlikely. One said it’s possible a printed copy was stolen, or the leak was purposeful. The reaction makes me think they know it was purposefully done. There was a smaller leak a few weeks prior to this one. A clerk runs a great risk in doing a leak. An arrogant member of the court might have done it.
Oh I’d get a lawyer too. But any employee, anywhere, “signs up” to cooperate in internal investigations by their employer.
Depends on your definition of cooperate. I wouldn’t just hand over my cell phone or laptop if asked. Unless it is specified somewhere, I’d be wary of turning over anything. There are all kinds of unknowns.
That’s the nature of I’ll defined obligations. They can create nasty leverage situations that one doesn’t want to be on the wrong side of.
I think they already have it, illegally. Now they need to go through the motions of getting it legally so they can fry their ass.
