The Violent Dems are at it

And of course, you know that it wasn’t a clerk for one of the conservatives who was worried that his/her boss might change their mind and work with Roberts to find some compromise.
In any event, at least have the common sense to learn the meaning of “treason”. In the worse case, the legal violation here might be the theft of government property. There were no “national security” implications to a leak of a draft opinion on a social policy issue. The leak was stupid, a breach of trust and contrary to legal ethics, whether it was from the liberal or conservative side of the issue.

Gadolhadorah,

Nowhere in your answer was there a reply to my comment that the MSM would have highlighted it

May I suggest that we wait for the facts, lakewhut?

“A disconcerting happening but not criminal.“

What are you referring to?

The leak is a criminal matter.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has held an intangible item, like information, can be a “thing of value” under 18 U.S.C. §1030, and since the Supreme Court is located within the District of Columbia Circuit­, this would be a chargeable offense.

Additionally, 18 U.S.C. §1001 makes it a federal offense to knowingly and willfully make a materially false statement “in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative or judicial branch of the Government of the United States … ” The chief justice could ask all the law clerks, and anyone else who had access to Alito’s draft opinion (less than 50 people in total), to sign a statement saying that they were not the source of the leak. Assuming that they all sign the statement denying being the source of the leak, the chief justice could then ask law enforcement agents to interview each of those individuals. If the interview exposes the leaker, that individual could be prosecuted for having made a false statement in the declaration.

In 1919, the Department of Justice indicted Ashton Embry, Justice Joseph McKenna’s law clerk, for sharing the court’s decisions with Wall Street traders before the decisions were officially released.

Another possibility is prosecution for so-called honest services fraud. As the Congressional Research Service has said, Congress amended 18 U.S.C. §1346, “which defines the crimes of mail and wire fraud,” to make clear that this statute extends “to conduct that deprives a person or group of the right to have another act in accordance with some externally imposed duty or obligation, regardless of whether the victim so deprived has suffered or would suffer a pecuniary harm.”

Another remote possibility is prosecution under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986, which is codified at 18 U.S.C. §1030. The act makes it a crime “to access a computer with authorization and to use such access to obtain or alter information in the computer that the accesser is not entitled so to obtain or alter.”

My hunch is that the court realizes that making a ruckus about it this way, will defer the riot over the court’s decision. From what I read of it, this is not a full victory for the anti abortion camp. It is along the trajectory of the last twenty five years.

In short, this is an issue out of a tissue.

And then Gini found a leftist friend to sneak this to a leftist publication. If she were so skills, the congress would have kept Trump president on the 6th

If the author or publisher commissioned a crime to obtain this document, the author and/or publisher should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

This looks like one more topic for the upcoming Republican congressional investigations after November. This is gonna to be one long dark winter. One minor nekuda I am interested in – who forced Pfizer to delay opening up spectacular Phase 3 results for after election.

You are overlooking Pfizer being it’s own political personality. Follow the money/support

“If your saying that Pfizer stood to gain by the political outcome, I agree with the premise.”

This.

“But I have no imagination of what the benefits could possibly be. ”

can’t speak for things that aren’t shared but imagine support, monetary and legal, from people who share many lines of support and income as you. I had a long talk with some pharmacy friends about some of this but I haven’t personally checked up on the theory with anyone at pfizer.
Also, wasn’t Trump trying to squash pharmaceutical price gauging?

> I doubt any political personality has enough clout to force Pfizer

All I know is that (as was reported somewhat later and not well distributed) they reached pre-planned number of cases before the election and then someone, presumably from FDA, said that that it will be better to open it up with more cases to be more sure. This is all reading between lines of obscure explanations, I never read anyone fully explaining what happened. Maybe I missed it. If you saw it, please suggest where to find it.