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