Fierce Patriots

Conservative Political News

  • Subscribe

Leak

Pompeo says he knows this Democrat leaked classified info

by Leave a Comment

Mike Pompeo claimed during an appearance on Fox News Channel’s “Outnumbered” that Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff of California has leaked classified information.

Pompeo, who served as CIA director and then as secretary of state during former President Donald Trump’s tenure, said during his time in those roles, he knows that Schiff “leaked classified information that had been provided to him.”

Pompeo said that when information was supplied to Schiff and his staff, that information showed up in places it should not have, “with alarming regularity.”



Adam Schiff should be nowhere near classified information: Pompeowww.youtube.com

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) has rejected the appointments of Schiff and Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) to sit on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, on which they both previously served and which Schiff has previously chaired.

Pompeo has indicated that he is mulling the possibility of a 2024 presidential run, while Schiff has said that he will consider running for U.S. Senate if Sen. Dianne Feinstein decides to retire.

Meta announced on Wednesday that it plans to reinstate “Trump’s Facebook and Instagram accounts in the coming weeks.”

Schiff described the social media company’s move as “dangerous.”

“Trump incited an insurrection. And tried to stop the peaceful transfer of power. He’s shown no remorse. No contrition. Giving him back access to a social media platform to spread his lies and demagoguery is dangerous,” Schiff tweeted. “@facebook caved, giving him a platform to do more harm.”

Trump, who had long been expected to announce another White House run, officially announced in November that he is running for president again.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

SCOTUS marshal did not request that justices sign sworn affidavits in leak probe

by Leave a Comment

Supreme Court Marshal Gail A. Curley said in a statement on Friday that she spoke to the justices amid the investigation into a draft opinion leak, but she never requested that they sign sworn affidavits.

“During the course of the investigation, I spoke with each of the Justices, several on multiple occasions. The Justices actively cooperated in this iterative process, asking questions and answering mine. I followed up on all credible leads, none of which implicated the Justices or their spouses. On this basis, I did not believe that it was necessary to ask the Justices to sign sworn affidavits,” Curley said in the statement.

The marshal’s report on the investigation noted that the probe failed to uncover who was responsible for the leak of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization draft opinion. In May 2022, Politico published the draft, which revealed that the Supreme Court was poised to strike down the 1973 Roe v. Wade abortion ruling — the court’s official opinion released in June 2022 did, in fact, overturnRoe.

The report on the leak investigation stated that “all personnel who had access to the draft opinion signed sworn affidavits affirming they did not disclose the draft opinion nor know anything about who did.” The report also noted, “A few of those interviewed admitted to telling their spouses about the draft opinion or vote count, so they annotated their affidavits to that effect.”

But the leak remains a mystery, with the report indicating that the investigation did not determine how the Politico obtained the draft.

“At this time, based on a preponderance of the evidence standard, it is not possible to determine the identity of any individual who may have disclosed the document or how the draft opinion ended up with Politico,” the report read. “While investigators and the Court’s IT experts cannot absolutely rule out a hack, the evidence to date reveals no suggestion of improper outside access. Investigators also cannot eliminate the possibility that the draft opinion was inadvertently or negligently disclosed – for example, by being left in a public space either inside or outside the building.”

Slate senior writer Mark Joseph Stern suggested that the marshal had not furnished a good rationale for choosing not to ask the justices to sign affidavits. “If the marshal was so certain the justices weren’t involved with the leak, she could’ve simply asked them to sign a sworn affidavit saying so, just like everyone else. It would not have been difficult. If she has a good reason for refusing to do so, she has not provided it!” Stern tweeted.

“The logic is odd: Curley says she saw no reason to ask the Justices to sign affidavits because there were no credible leads implicating the Justices or their spouses. Were there credible leads implicating all of the Court employees who *were* asked to sign affidavits?” tweeted Steven Mazie, whose Twitter profile indicates that he covers the high court for the Economist and teaches political science.

“Note Curley’s use of the phrase ‘spoke with.’ Her report, in contrast, repeatedly used the terms ‘interview’ and ‘formal interview’ to describe her questioning of court staff. Not using those terms here suggests that her conversations with the justices were much more informal,” SCOTUSblog editor James Romoser tweeted.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

‘Arrest the reporter, publisher, editor’: Trump calls for jailing journalists if they won’t identify Supreme Court draft opinion-leaker

by Leave a Comment

Former President Donald Trump is calling for the journalists who were involved in publishing a leaked Supreme Court draft opinion last year to be jailed if they decline to divulge the identity of their source.

The Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization draft opinion published by Politico in May 2022 revealed that the high court appeared poised to overturn Roe v. Wade — the court did just that with its official opinion in June 2022.

The Supreme Court Marshal’s report about the investigation into the leak noted that the probe had failed to uncover the culprit.

Trump, who announced last year that he is running for president again, said the reporter who broke the news about the leaked draft opinion should be thrown in jail if they refuse to disclose the identity of the leaker. Politico’s Josh Gerstein and Alexander Ward authored the piece last year about the leaked draft opinion. Trump also suggested imprisoning the editor and publisher as well if they do not identify the source.

“They’ll never find out, & it’s important that they do. So, go to the reporter & ask him/her who it was. If not given the answer, put whoever in jail until the answer is given. You might add the publisher and editor to the list. Stop playing games, this leaking cannot be allowed to happen. It won’t take long before the name of this slime is revealed!” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post. “Arrest the reporter, publisher, editor – you’ll get your answer fast. Stop playing games and wasting time!” he wrote in another post.

The questions surrounding the leak remain a mystery — the investigation did not produce the identity of the leaker or determine how Politico obtained the draft.

“At this time, based on a preponderance of the evidence standard, it is not possible to determine the identity of any individual who may have disclosed the document or how the draft opinion ended up with Politico,” the Supreme Court Marshal’s report read.

“No one confessed to publicly disclosing the document and none of the available forensic and other evidence provided a basis for identifying any individual as the source of the document. While investigators and the Court’s IT experts cannot absolutely rule out a hack, the evidence to date reveals no suggestion of improper outside access. Investigators also cannot eliminate the possibility that the draft opinion was inadvertently or negligently disclosed – for example, by being left in a public space either inside or outside the building,” the report stated.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Unsolved mystery: Investigation into Supreme Court draft opinion leak fails to produce perpetrator

by Leave a Comment

An investigation has not yielded answers to the questions surrounding the leak of a Supreme Court draft opinion last year — the probe has failed to uncover any perpetrator or determine how a media outlet obtained the draft opinion.

The Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization draft opinion published by Politico in May 2022 revealed that the high court appeared poised to overturn the controversial 1973 Roe v. Wade abortion decision — the court did just that in its official opinion, which was issued in June 2022.

“The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives,” the draft and official opinions both declared.

But investigators have failed to determine how the breach occurred and who was responsible.

“At this time, based on a preponderance of the evidence standard, it is not possible to determine the identity of any individual who may have disclosed the document or how the draft opinion ended up with Politico,” the Supreme Court Marshal’s report read.

“No one confessed to publicly disclosing the document and none of the available forensic and other evidence provided a basis for identifying any individual as the source of the document. While investigators and the Court’s IT experts cannot absolutely rule out a hack, the evidence to date reveals no suggestion of improper outside access. Investigators also cannot eliminate the possibility that the draft opinion was inadvertently or negligently disclosed – for example, by being left in a public space either inside or outside the building,” the report stated.

The report noted that some people admitted to informing their significant other about the draft. “Some individuals admitted to investigators that they told their spouse or partner about the draft Dobbs opinion and the vote count, in violation of the Court’s confidentiality rules,” the report noted.

“Investigators continue to review and process some electronic data that has been collected and a few other inquiries remain pending. To the extent that additional investigation yields new evidence or leads, the investigators will pursue them,” the report noted.