Let's quickly review the timeline on this matter.  Back in May, a little more than seven months ago, an unprecedented leak emerged from the Supreme Court.  Someone had given the draft majority opinion in the highly-anticipated Dobbs abortion case to a journalist at Politico, who published it.  The report detonated like a bombshell in Washington, both on the substance of what the Court was about to rule, but also on process.  Such things simply do not happen at SCOTUS, with this outrageous anomaly triggering a spate of whodunit speculation.  Many conservatives pointed the finger of blame at the Left, surmising that perhaps a clerk to one of the liberal justices had dramatically breached protocol in order to gin up public outrage ahead of the final ruling being published.  Sure enough, hordes of protesters descended upon the family homes of multiple justices, and at least one assassination plot was disrupted.  But the majority didn't waver.  

Others concluded that the leaker probably came from the Court's right flank, deploying the leak to solidify what may have been a fluid 6-3 majority, betting that no justice would cave to a public pressure campaign once the draft was out in the open.  Adherents to this theory included National Public Radio's longtime SCOTUS correspondent, who makes little effort to disguise her progressive politics.  Chief Justice John Roberts -- who joined the majority, but who urged his colleagues to have landed closer to a 'middle ground' outcome -- was irate over the leak and announced an investigation into its provenance.  All these months later, we still don't know what happened and who's responsible.  But that didn't stop a Democratic member of the House Judiciary Committee from pretending the issue has been more or less settled, asserting that "all evidence" supports his conclusion.  Said evidence doesn't actually exist: