trust has just announced that it failed to learn who is responsible for that unprecedented leak of the decision overturning roe v. wade last spring. that dropped opinion would ultimately be the opinion issued by the court in a highly polarizing decision to remove a constitutional right held for 50 years in america. from the new york times reporting on this developing story, quote, in a 20-page report, the court s martial said that investigators had conducted 126 formal interviews of employees all of whom had denied being the source of the leak. investigators found no forensic evidence by examining the court s computer devices and available call and text logs. the washington post adds, quote, justice samuel alito said that the leak was a grave betrayal of trust by somebody and it was a shock that led to a changed atmosphere at the court and made his colleagues in the majority, quote, targets for assassination. the threat to the justices, he added was not theoretical becaus
there was a threat of an assassination attempt on the conservative justices. i guess he had the whip count already. knew they could all be targeted. is there an obligation to take this investigation from the court and figure out who did the leaking that led to a, quote, assassination threat against the conservative justices? the question is, who would do that? who has the authority to do that? john roberts. i don t know well, the same john roberts who still doesn t hasn t drafted a code of ethics for his court. you want to talk about public perceptions, draft an ethics code, that would go a long way. he s the one who decided this case would be handled by the chief of police, right? that s her job. i m not making that phrase up or demeaning her role in any single way, the security at the supreme court is fantastic. but in writing, her job is chief of police.