Just over a week ago, I published a blog post headlined, “The Dobbs leak probe somehow just got worse.” If you can believe it, the probe, such as it is, looks even worse since then.
How, you might be wondering, is that possible?
Well, the latest gasoline on the dumpster fire comes from CNN reporting over the weekend that “some Supreme Court justices often used personal email accounts for sensitive transmissions instead of secure servers set up to guard such information, among other security lapses not made public in the court’s report on the investigation.” The reporting, which hasn’t been independently verified by NBC News or MSNBC, mentions security failures such as printers that didn’t produce logs and the careless use of “burn bags” meant to ensure destruction of sensitive information.
It’s increasingly unsurprising that the leak occurred and, due to the half-baked internal investigation, hasn’t been solved.
Last month, I noted that former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, who reportedly wrote a letter endorsing the court marshal’s Jan. 19 report on the probe that failed to find the leaker, had undisclosed financial ties to the court. Of course, the “probe” that didn’t fully investigate the justices and make them sign the same affidavits that their staff did, attesting that they didn’t leak, was laughable on its face. But Chertoff’s previously undisclosed interest further highlighted the farcical nature of the effort.
I pointed out, at the time, that the justices could still take a step toward salvaging the incompetent investigation by signing affidavits themselves. The justices did not take me up on my suggestion.
This is all to say, it’s increasingly unsurprising that the leak occurred and, due to the half-baked internal investigation, hasn’t been solved. And now, the justices’ reportedly shoddy information security practices makes the failure to truly investigate them even less forgivable.
I should also point out that not finding the leaker is totally fine. It might be interesting to know, but the court’s self-centered quest to find them isn’t really the public’s problem. And yet, the more we learn about that quest and the court itself, the worse both look.
