I don't know what makes you think you have a better idea than me. Are you one of the prosecutors?
It's a time honored tradition for SP's to go after perjury when they don't have any other crime to prosecute. Yeah, sure the judges say they won't allow a fishing expedition. Why do you think they said that? Because they agree with me that it's headed in that direction.
I think it because I can tell I have a better and more comprehensive grasp on the facts surrounding the matter based on what you have posted.
So what were the pages and pages and pages and pages of redacted documents all about?
Just what witnesses have said and a proffer that the SP wanted to verify that the reporters would confirm or lie?
I don't think so.
And I'll add, one of the three judge panel said he definitely believes in a journalist privilege existing but that the prosecutor had demonstrated it would not apply in this case.
I do not believe it is fishing for perjury.