Visits: 7
Ball Is in DOJ’s Court on SCOTUS Leaker. Thanks to Allan and Newsmax for this great article.
Constitutional law expert Alan Dershowitz told Newsmax Monday that enough evidence has been uncovered in the case involving the Supreme Court Dobbs decision leaker “for the Justice Department to get involved” and that the “ball is now squarely in [Attorney General] Merrick Garland’s court.”
“Why doesn’t the Justice Department open an investigation?” he asked during an appearance on Newsmax’s “National Report.” “Why don’t they appoint a special counsel?
“Why are they relying on the marshal’s office? I know the marshal’s office. I was a law clerk in the Supreme Court. They’re the nicest people in the world. They help people to their seats, and they make sure there’s order in the court, but they’re not equipped to conduct a major investigation. They can’t give immunity — the Justice Department can do this.”
“There’s enough evidence now to warrant probable cause for the Justice Department to get involved on the basis of probable cause that a serious crime may have been committed,” he continued. “We cannot leave this unresolved. It must be solved.”
Dershowitz said that the implications for future cases at the high court are “horrible” and that it’s important to understand that the “leaker was not a whistleblower.”
“He was not trying to reveal government misconduct; he was trying to corruptly influence the decision of the Supreme Court,” he said. “He deserves, or she deserves, no protection at all and I think [Justice Samuel] Alito now has an obligation to go to the marshal’s office and to the chief justice and to say, Look, here’s my suspicion, not enough to name it publicly, but enough for you to call this person in and subject them either to further interrogation, a lie detector test, testimony under oath to make sure … that he’s convictable of a crime.”
“There’s a great deal more that can be done right now,” he went on. “I mean, the ultimate thing that could be done is Congress could call the reporters from Politico and ask them to name the leaker. Now they’ll say, No, no, there’s a journalistic privilege, but I’m not sure the courts will recognize the journalistic privilege when the source of the privilege was not somebody who was a whistleblower, but somebody who was either committing a serious crime or at least a serious ethical breach.
“This should be the beginning, not the end. We must discover who this leaker was. This is not an ordinary leak. This is an attempt to corruptly influence a decision of the United States Supreme Court.”
55
