1. The Marshal office of the Court has limited investigative experience and the Court failed to bring in law enforcement agencies despite suggesting laws were broken.

Let’s be clear here: long-forecast dangers of climate change are now so real as to enter the “due diligence” horizon, so fossil fuel stooges are trying to bend and break due diligence.

All the complainers are funded by fossil fuel; all the complaints about “wokeness” and “ESG” boil down to fossil fuel emissions risk reporting. It’s a political maneuver, a performance, just as fake as the climate denial it serves.

Red flags are flying about the SCOTUS “investigation” into the Alito draft opinion leak. Lots of things differentiate this from a real investigation. Here are some:

2. I’ve never seen an investigation that had a third party riding along in a sidecar (Chertoff) to say it was a good investigation. Weird.

4. It is not clear that all suspects were interviewed. What was the undisclosed “iterative” process with the justices? It does not sound like an investigative interview when the subject is asking questions.

5. It is not clear that records were kept of statements of the justices. Investigation 101 is to take down witness statements (a) so there is no question later about what was said and (b) so any wrongfully false statements can be prosecuted. That’s SOP.

7. Leaving out how or whether justices were interviewed was a stunning gap. They ultimately had to backfill, which they did very vaguely, but why the flinch in the first place? Are the justices made of spun sugar and vulnerable to breakage?