>

it's cnn. they're gonna straddle the fence until it becomes the berlin wall.
They would not have made the announcement they made if they were unable to find the leaker.
It's the only reason to go out there and say the investigation is over and we could not find the person responsible is because you did find them and they are sitting on the fucking Supreme Court. >

Exactly. You never come out and just give up like this. “Oh shit, we suck and we’ll never know who did it, what a shame!” You leave the door open to possibilities that information could develop later that you don’t have now.
For them to say this is telling; they know who leaked it and they want to shut the door, and for Roberts to approve an unsigned court statement characterizing the leak as a “misguided attempt at protest” — without any ostensible evidence — reeks of them wanting to get out in front of this with a distraction. >

It's unwillingness, not inability. It was one of the right wing "justices" >

Most likely Alito >

Alito bird told me who the leaker was. >

Bravo >

A significant majority of Americans do not trust this SC.  They could not find the leaker?  Or they found the leaker and it was not a progressive judge?  I'm guessing the latter.  Easier to feign incompetence than embarrass the conservative judges......... >

Oh, they found the leaker >

It never intended to find the leaker.  They knew who it was. >

My bologna has a first name - it's A-L-I-T-O >

I doubt they called in Benoit Blanc to take the case... >

I don't think any one of us will be surprised to learn it was one of the judges.  Alito in particular.  Seems like something he'd do.  Just so he could relish in everyone's shock and surprise.  He probably came harder than he ever has before (sorry, but that's also probably true). /s >

It seems like something Alito would do because he’s already done it before to his wealthy donors. He’s an ideological zealot, bought and paid for, and his mission is not impartial jurisprudence but to rule with foregone political conclusions for his benefactors and then argue his way backwards from there. >

They know who it is. Why would a conservative SCOTUS provide cover for the liberal minority? >

Everyone knew Roe was on the chopping block. Who benefits most from a leak? The right wing justices, who now have a way to signal to sympathetic legislatures that it is time to ready their abortion restrictions so they can be implemented immediately after the announcement for max impact.
And shockingly, they are having trouble identifying who leaked. >

Crooked as hell. >

Supremely Crooked. >

Just wait until it leaks that they found the leaker and it's "inconvenient" for them to admit who it was. >

The didn't "find" the leaker because it was Alito to hold his colleague's feet to the fire. >

That means it was alito, one of thomas', or they leave completed decisions next to an open window, unguarded like aunt Bea cools a pie, so those little rascals can steal it without being caught. >

Bullshit when have you ever seen an investigative body go “guess we’ll never know”? They know who it was and are covering it up. 
Also pretty wack but unsurprising for cnn to be spinning it as a matter of inability, instead of a blatant coverup. >

CNN is under new ownership from a right winger who wants to “make the news impartial again” they will be almost like Fox News soon >

I wave an enormous bullshit flag. There was all that talk of "sanctity" of the court and fire and brimstone and imprisoning the leaker....now it's just whoopsiedoodle, our security protocols are made of Swiss cheese? Yeah, no. They understand perfectly well that most of the country is chafing under their religious conservative heels. If it was a liberal affiliated justice, it would be trumpeted as proof that "the left" is trying to destroy the court and America. The fact that it's just quietly going away makes me think the leaker was indeed a conservative justice or someone close to them. That revelation would destroy any remaining credibility this court clings to. >

Not inability, refusal. >

Oh they found them. They’re just unwilling to out one of their own. >

They knew who the leaker is… It’s just politically inconvenient to name her >

Him* >

Ginny Thomas uses male pronouns? >

"Inability".  Sure, sure. >

Should be titled; "Supreme Court's decision to not look for the leaker adds to it's credibility problems"