Supreme Court did not disclose financial relationship with expert brought in to review leak probe
Source: CNN Politics
CNN The Supreme Court did not disclose its longstanding financial ties with former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff even as it touted him as an expert who independently validated its investigation into who leaked the draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade. The courts inquiry, released last week with Chertoffs endorsement, failed to identify who was responsible for the unprecedented leak.
The decision to keep the relationship with Chertoff quiet is a reflection of a pattern of opacity at the nations highest court, whose rulings affect every American. CNN has learned from sources familiar with the arrangements that the court in recent years has privately contracted with The Chertoff Group for security assessments, some broadly covering justices safety and some specifically related to Covid-19 protocols at the court itself.
The estimated payments to Chertoffs risk assessment firm, for consultations that extended over several months and involved a review of the justices homes, reached at least $1 million. The exact amount of money paid could not be determined. Supreme Court contracts are not covered by federal public disclosure rules and elude tracking on public databases.
The justices have long cloaked themselves in secrecy to the point of declining to respond to questions about potential conflicts of interest, or to reveal information about some court rules and ethics codes; or to release timely information about the justices health and public appearances. The courts decision to keep secret the prior arrangements with Chertoff, whose professional path has intersected over the years with Chief Justice John Roberts and other court conservatives, as it used him for a seal of approval, adds to controversy over the leak investigation itself.
Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/27/politics/supreme-court-chertoff-leak-investigation
Full headline: Exclusive: Supreme Court did not disclose financial relationship with expert brought in to review leak probe
sinkingfeeling
(51,454 posts)bluestarone
(16,933 posts)EXPAND the number of judges. But HOW?
AllaN01Bear
(18,200 posts)Thomas Hurt
(13,903 posts)2naSalit
(86,599 posts)KPN
(15,645 posts)racket as Homeland Security chief, e.g., the full body scanners.
NullTuples
(6,017 posts)"Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff benefiting from scanner sales"
https://www.deseret.com/2010/1/2/20362165/homeland-security-secretary-michael-chertoff-benefiting-from-scanner-sales
nuxvomica
(12,423 posts)Would established political hack Chertoff look the other way if his investigation pointed to a liberal justice or their clerks and assistants? Of course not. So either Chertoff just failed to find the leaker or did find the leaker and failed to report it for idealogical/cronyism reasons.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)Durham only was looking for, and only cared about prosecuting, those trying to bring Trump to justice.
DURHAM D
(32,609 posts)KPN
(15,645 posts)actively destroying the country and Constitution.
Marthe48
(16,950 posts)The majority unelected, dishonest, undeserving despotic majority are as individually, or collectively, as crooked as a dog's hind leg. The 6 unelected despots sitting on the (formerly) s.c. are the exact judges the fascists want and need to side with the criminal and traitorous elements in government, business and gee, even each other.
Xoan
(25,321 posts)NCjack
(10,279 posts)LisaM
(27,810 posts)How was his name not part of the headlines? I saw several pieces on this story and his name never came up.
He's a known hack. The SCOTUS gamed it for Bush and he benefited from that. Clarence Thomas had ties to Bush, Chertoff.has ties to Bush.
Just because Trump is so awful doesn't mean we should normalize Bush.
BumRushDaShow
(128,953 posts)I was surprised the name did make it in the article's URL (link) so it's like an "easter egg" gimme.
certainot
(9,090 posts)Ray Bruns
(4,094 posts) Everybody knows that the dice are loaded
Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed
Everybody knows the war is over
Everybody knows the good guys lost
Everybody knows the fight was fixed
The poor stay poor, the rich get rich
That's how it goes
Everybody knows
littlemissmartypants
(22,656 posts)KPN
(15,645 posts)Farmer-Rick
(10,169 posts)For an incomplete, inadequate and spotty investigation. We should get our money back.
Maybe we shouldn't allow the partisan Court to contract with any dick around. Maybe defund just them? Why are my tax dollars being so poorly managed by the Supremes?
Every time you go through a naked scanner at the airport Chertoff makes $500.
"Chertoff has been an advocate of enhanced technologies, such as full body scanners. His lobbying firm Chertoff Group (founded 2009) represents manufacturers of the scanners."
Mawspam2
(729 posts)FakeNoose
(32,639 posts)brush
(53,776 posts)to the six winger judges that it was one of them done, IMO, to soften up the country as to what was coming.
barbtries
(28,793 posts)i don't see how this court maintains even a grain of credibility. so disgusted.
i hate republicans
SayItLoud
(1,702 posts)Not a fucking thing will happen and no one will be held accountable and more frustrating nothing will change. We are the Banana Republic we accused so many other countries of being. We're just the Tiffany level. Organic, premium bananas.
Backseat Driver
(4,392 posts)"CNN has learned from sources familiar with the arrangements..."
A "liberal"-or-not Justice admitted (confirmed) in the past or retired or more recently added to the American ROL Club of lifers? Next question:
Did they then lie under oath or are the arrangements only revealed after confirmation to SCOTUS. Someone who sees and/or hides the receipts in Chertoff's Group? Someone fulfilling their New Year's resolution to do the right thing, now that they know for certain, LOL? They felt safest revealing this to CNN? I'm guessing it wasn't Rep George Santos, right?
republianmushroom
(13,590 posts)FBaggins
(26,735 posts)The court has no congressionally-mandated obligation to run investigations in a particular way - nor any obligation to avoid using consultants that they've used previously.
In the absence of one of the liberal justices complaining about the process... I'm not sure what the author is trying to say here.
The article seems to be a way for "Project on Government Oversight" to advocate for more oversight of court spending decisions... rather than a claim that existing standards were not followed.
msfiddlestix
(7,282 posts)OneCrazyDiamond
(2,032 posts)Scalded Nun
(1,236 posts)Baitball Blogger
(46,705 posts)Barr pressed Durham to find flaws in the Russia investigation.
https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation-world/ct-aud-nw-nyt-barr-durham-russia-investigation-20230126-uw7fl7ftabcuxanbhu3qoab33a-story.html
And Chertoff serves up an order of a nothing burger to satisfy his Supreme Court cronies.
Ford_Prefect
(7,895 posts)Joinfortmill
(14,417 posts)msfiddlestix
(7,282 posts)in particular. All the branches of course, but this one especially.
us knowing the specifics makes it harder to see how, unless it becomes THE headline on cable news etc etc erc.
ck4829
(35,074 posts)brush
(53,776 posts)Roberts hasn't done a good job of stewartship of the Court's reputation/legacy. Neither has McTurtle and the republican party in filling the seats on the court...at least one was stolen.
Mysterian
(4,587 posts)Due to the evil treason of Mitch McConnell.