Some of Author's conclusions just seem like failures of imagination: * "it must be someone who only had access to a stapled, printed copy of the draft opinion

Some of Author's conclusions just seem like failures of imagination: * "it must be someone who only had access to a stapled, printed copy of the draft opinion (If the person had access to the under­lying digital file, they wouldn’t have printed & stapled it just to unstaple it.)" * "I don’t think the leaker was an oppo­nent of the opinion, because there would be no tactical value in doing so." On the former, that assumes it's less risky to grab a digital copy (copied to some medium plugged into some machine, likely audited, maybe rights protected), than to smuggle out (and smuggle back in?) a physical copy. The latter is super low-tech and in an environment where (as demonstrated by Roberts' press release) the trust level is super high, I wonder how hard it is to smuggle out paper copies. There's all sorts of potential black magic in a digital copy that the tech unsavvy may (rightfully) be afraid of. So even if you had access to both, low-tech may be best. On the latter, it's usually not wise to put your own rational thoughts into the head of a suspect. You need to understand *their* "rational" thoughts. It's not too hard for me to imagine some perceived benefits that an opponent or proponent of the opinion would see in the leak.