Connect with us

News

Experts Blast Chief Justice’s ‘Sham’ Leak Probe: ‘When Is an Investigation Not an Investigation?’

Published

on

Legal and political exerts are blasting the U.S. Supreme Court’s investigation that failed to determine who leaked the draft opinion in the Dobbs case that ultimately served to overturn Roe v. Wade and void the decades-old previously-constitutional right to abortion. Some, having read the Court’s report on the investigation, state it appears the Justices and their spouses were not interviewed or investigated.

In an unsigned statement Thursday the Court announced after a long investigation, “to date” it had been “unable to identify a person responsible by a preponderance of the evidence.”

Frank Figliuzzi, the well-known former FBI Assistant Director for Counterintelligence and MSNBC national security analyst, served up strong contempt for the process chosen by the Court, and what he suggested was the underlying reason the investigation failed to produce the leaker.

Asked point-blank on MSNBCs “Dateline: White House” if he believes the leaker is already known to the Court, he responded with one word: “Yes.”

“Looks like maybe they didn’t want to get to the truth,” he opined.

READ MORE: Supreme Court Announces It Can’t Figure Out Who Leaked the Draft Decision of the Ruling That Overturned Roe

Noted national security attorney Mark S. Zaid, who also handles government investigation cases, says investigators did not interview or investigate the Justices or their spouses.

“Having read [the] investigative findings, I am completely struck by fact does not appear Justices (or their families) were interviewed, much less investigated,” he tweeted.

“Since bare min[imum] ‘preponderance of evidence’ was standard that could not be met w/staff, who else does that leave as leaker?” he asked.

“When is an investigation really not an investigation?” Figliuzzi also rhetorically suggested to MSNBC anchor Nicolle Wallace. “When you’re told what you can and can’t do, you can’t do what you need to do or talk to the people you need to talk to to solve the investigation, and, when the investigation isn’t conducted by professional investigators.”

Figliuzzi, himself an expert investigator who served as the Bureau’s chief inspector, blasted the decisions made about how the investigation would be conducted and who would conduct it.

“The U.S. Marshal Service did not conduct this investigation. This investigation was conducted by someone called the Marshal of the Supreme Court. I’m sure she’s a wonderful person. But she has no law enforcement training or experience. She’s in charge of securing the building called the Supreme Court building and its justices. That’s what she does.”

He also criticized who he says was not investigated: former clerks and current Justices.

READ MORE: ‘War Has Begun’: Ex-NOM Spokesperson Carrie Prejean Lashes Out Over Miss Universe Being Owned by Trans Woman

“If you want to do real serious leak investigation, you’re going to talk literally to every person who may have had access to whatever it is that leaked. From what we can see so far, while they may have talked one hundred people, they didn’t talk to ex-clerks. They didn’t talk to the very universe of people who may have done the leaking and then left the court,” he noticed.

“They didn’t call the FBI, because you know what would happen, then a real case would have happened. They wouldn’t have actually had the criminal process.”

“Someone stole government property, someone mishandled government records, potentially a crime. They could have had subpoenas of former clerks and former employees they would have had that leverage over them. They could have subpoenaed phone carriers and internet providers, and they could have see who was talking to whom and when, at the media platform that obtained this information,” he said, presumably referring to Politico which obtained and published the leaked draft opinion. “All of that could have been done.”

“We still have, according to The New York Times reporting today, we have no evidence that the justices themselves were interviewed.”

There was “no serious intent to get to get to the bottom of it, in my opinion,” Figliuzzi added.

Wallace at that point specified she was calling it “a sham investigation,” and then asked, “Why would a sham investigation be ordered? If Justice Alito felt that his quote assassination was possible because of the leak?”

Former Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division, Peter Strzok, also points to the fact, based on the report from the Marshal of the Supreme Court, that the Justices and their spouses were not investigated, and former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff’s claim affirming the quality of the investigation.

“Kind of blows a huge hole in Chertoff’s statement that he ‘[could] not identify any additional useful investigative measures,'” Strzok wrote.

Former RNC chairman Michael Steele went even further, while agreeing with Figliuzzi’s take that the Court knows who the leaker is.

“I don’t think they want to know,” he alleged, also on MSNBC’s “Deadline: White House.”

“I don’t think they want to know because I think they already know. I think they already know enough to know who, what, where, when and why, inside that building.”

Steele, a veteran of politics, declared, “the worst outcome here is not a judicial one. It is a political one. It is one that steeps this building, and its justices in a political vortex that they cannot escape from. Sitting at 26% approval among the American people because of the prior bad acts and opinions in how people are perceiving how this Court is operating.”

READ MORE: Trump Moves to Return to Twitter and Facebook After Being Banned Over Risk of ‘Incitement of Violence’ and to Public Safety

“You layer on top of this, someone within their own ranks, whether it was a staffer or a justice, God forbid – which I do not take off the table here – leaking this for nefarious political reasons, whether to create outcome ‘A’ or create outcome ‘B’ around this opinion, that does not create an avenue to further entrust or garner the trust of the American people.

Slate’s legal expert Dahlia Lithwick added to the conversation, “I think that the decision was taken to do this is in-house using the Marshal Service, but probably other choices could have been made, to have a different, perhaps more thorough investigation. But I think the takeaway is exactly what you just heard, that for a leak that was characterized by most of the justices as the single most shocking, egregious violation of norms like trust. It’s still being credited for destroying collegiality amongst the justices.”

“This was a nuclear bomb that went off into court. And now the answer seems to be, ‘so sad, too bad, I’m good,'” she observed. “It’s pretty amazing in light of how absolutely consequential this has been, not just for the justices amongst themselves, but for the sort of integrity and reputational interests of the court.”

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

‘He Is Not in Charge’: Trump Mocked After Asking What’s in His Own Executive Order

Published

19 hours ago

on

May 23, 2025

By

President Donald Trump has signed more than 150 executive orders, often with cameras rolling and staff looking on. The ritual rarely varies: seated at the desk in the Oval Office, the President listens as someone—typically the White House Staff Secretary—reads a brief summary of the order. On occasion, Trump interjects with a question, prompting speculation that he may not be fully familiar with the contents. He is seldom seen fully reading the orders themselves, which can span anywhere from a few pages to nearly 70.

On Friday, President Trump signed several executive orders, but according to The Daily Beast, one particularly revealing moment suggested he may not have known what he was signing—describing it as “a telling moment” that implied the president hadn’t read the order.

“Are we doing something about the regulatory in here?” Trump asked a business person attending the event.

READ MORE: ‘There Is No Tariff’: Trump Denies Policy Shift After Calling for 50% EU Tariff

“Several business leaders standing around him were quick to chime in that his order did address the regulations while Interior Secretary Doug Burgum also responded, ‘You are, sir,'” The Daily Beast also reported.

At the end, Trump asked, “Is that it?” and one of the attendees replied, “That’s all we have for you now, sir.”

Then, rather than asking if there were any questions for him about the executive orders, Trump asked if anyone had any questions for the guests in the room, whom he called “brilliant.”

READ MORE: ‘This Is Extortion’: Former Harvard President Blasts Trump’s Act of ‘Madness’

Critics blasted the President.

Fred Wellman is a graduate of West Point and the Harvard Kennedy School, an Army veteran of 22 years who served four combat tours, and a political consultant.

“He is not in charge,” Wellman alleged.

MSNBC columnist Michael A. Cohen snarked, “It’s almost as if Trump has cognitive deficiencies, which from what I hear on CNN is a major scandal.”

“’Is that it?’ while signing orders he doesn’t understand, parroting talking points he didn’t write, and pretending it’s leadership,” wrote investment banker Evaristus Odinikaeze. “Peak performative confusion.”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

READ MORE: Franklin Graham Scores Pentagon Christian Prayer Services Invitation

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

News

‘There Is No Tariff’: Trump Denies Policy Shift After Calling for 50% EU Tariff

Published

22 hours ago

on

May 23, 2025

By

Just hours after President Donald Trump called for a 50% tariff on products from the European Union starting June 1, he told reporters “There is no tariff,” and “I’m not looking for a deal.”

“The European Union, which was formed for the primary purpose of taking advantage of the United States on TRADE, has been very difficult to deal with,” Trump wrote on Truth Social at 7:43 AM. “Their powerful Trade Barriers, Vat Taxes, ridiculous Corporate Penalties, Non-Monetary Trade Barriers, Monetary Manipulations, unfair and unjustified lawsuits against Americans Companies, and more, have led to a Trade Deficit with the U.S. of more than $250,000,000 a year, a number which is totally unacceptable.”

“Our discussions with them are going nowhere! Therefore, I am recommending a straight 50% Tariff on the European Union, starting on June 1, 2025. There is no Tariff if the product is built or manufactured in the United States. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

READ MORE: ‘This Is Extortion’: Former Harvard President Blasts Trump’s Act of ‘Madness’

While signing executive orders in the Oval Office on Friday, a reporter said to Trump, “You are deal maker, deal breaker—what are you hoping to achieve with a 50% tariff?”

“Well, I think this is—there is no tariff because what they’ll do is they’ll send their companies into the U.S. and build their plant,” the President responded. “You know, we have, I guess, over $12 trillion practically committed. You look at other presidents, haven’t had a trillion dollars for a year, two years, for three years.”

“We have numbers. Nobody’s ever seen numbers like we have. And if they build their plant here, then they have no tariff at all.”

READ MORE: ‘Cut, Rip, Gut, Kill, Cruel’: Top Republican Lashes Out Over Dems Using These Words

“Are you looking for a deal in nine days? Will you be able to do that, sir?” the reporter asked.

“I’m not looking for a deal. I mean, we’ve set the deal. It’s at 50%, but again, there is no tariff if they build their plant here.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: Franklin Graham Scores Pentagon Christian Prayer Services Invitation

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

News

‘This Is Extortion’: Former Harvard President Blasts Trump’s Act of ‘Madness’

Published

23 hours ago

on

May 23, 2025

By

Former Harvard University President Lawrence Summers delivered sharp criticism of President Donald Trump and his administration for barring the nation’s oldest university from admitting foreign students—part of the President’s ongoing feud with several Ivy League institutions.

Harvard quickly sued the Trump administration. A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order against Trump’s efforts to revoke Harvard’s ability to admit foreign students, which comprise about one-quarter of the school’s total enrolled population.

“U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs’ order provides temporary relief to the thousands of international students who were faced with being forced to transfer under a policy that the Ivy League school called part of the administration’s broader effort to retaliate against it for refusing to ‘surrender its academic independence,'” Reuters reported.

READ MORE: White House Scrambles to Clean Up Trump’s Walmart ‘Rage Tweeting’ Amid Upcoming ‘Standoff’

Summers, who not only helmed the nearly-four-century-old Cambridge, Massachusetts, institution, but also served as U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, took to social media to blast Trump and praise the school for fighting back.

“Harvard University is doing just the right thing,” Summers wrote. “This is extortion. It’s a vendetta using all powers of the government because of a political argument with Harvard. It is violating the First Amendment. It is also violating all the laws we have regarding administrative procedures.”

“The consequences are real,” he continued, “whether it’s students who are dissidents from tyrannies who are going to be sent home and possibly be imprisoned, whether it’s labs that are fighting cancer or diabetes, that are going to lose key people, whether it’s 7,000 people, some small fraction of whom are going to go on to be Prime Ministers of countries who’ve now been turned into enemies of the United States, whether it is the way in which America [is] seen when it expels people whose dream it was to come to Harvard to study, this is madness.”

And he criticized the move as a “gift” to enemy nations.

READ MORE: ‘Shameless Liar and Insane Conspiracy Theorist’: RFK Jr. Slammed by Democratic Senator

“I cannot imagine a greater strategic gift that we could be giving to China and Russia, the enemies of freedom around the world,” Summers wrote. “If this lawsuit is allowed to stand, it is going to be incredibly damaging to Harvard. But that is the least of it. It is much more profound in how damaging this will be to the standing, the role and the position of the U.S. We used to be a beacon to the world. We’re now becoming a negative example. I imagine there must be great joy in Beijing and Moscow, seeing us implode with these kinds of policies.”

Current Harvard University President Alan Garber in a letter wrote: “For those international students and scholars affected by yesterday’s action, know that you are vital members of our community. You are our classmates and friends, our colleagues and mentors, our partners in the work of this great institution. Thanks to you, we know more and understand more, and our country and our world are more enlightened and more resilient. We will support you as we do our utmost to ensure that Harvard remains open to the world.”

Others weighed in as well.

“America cannot long remain free, nor first among nations, if it becomes the kind of place where universities are dismantled because they don’t align politically with the current head of the government,” wrote former Biden Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg.

“When Trump and [DHS Secretary Kristi] Noem say that they are cutting off visas for Harvard students because of ‘DEI’ concerns, they mean that Harvard admits non white males and has non white male faculty. DEI is just now code for white male supremacy,” declared U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT).

“The letter Noem sent to Harvard cites no law violated, no regulation broken, no policy ignored,” noted attorney and immigration expert Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, “just a threat to punish Harvard for their refusal to hand over FIVE YEARS of video of every student protest at the university, among other things. THAT is weaponization of government.”

READ MORE: ‘Cut, Rip, Gut, Kill, Cruel’: Top Republican Lashes Out Over Dems Using These Words

 

Image via Shutterstock

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.