82... In your opinion. But who really knows what the facts are? This is a grand jury proceeding. And as some of the other posters have pointed out, the facts have been spun every which way to Sunday on this case. You're simply accepting the spin the way you want it to be.
But if you think about it, you realize that there are reasons why there are gaps in the facts. It's because the government knows stuff, but isn't talking about it.
The only other explanation is that the prosecutor has convened a grand jury to investigate something that was from the outset admittedly is not a crime, and he's so abusive that he went so far as to throw innocent reporters in jail because they won't talk about it. Not only that, but he convinced the judges (including the Supreme Court) to go along.
I'll grant you that SP's do tend to go out of control, but if those are the actual facts, then this guy takes the cake.
It's much more likely that he's accepted the conclusion that she was covert, and is now simply trying to determine if someone broke the law.
OK, I've thought about it (before you even suggested it, believe it or not).
What I realize is that the only people being held in contempt for refusing to talk are reporters. I don't seen any government people not talking.
If you're referring to grand jury secrecy by "not talking", that is false. Secrecy does not equal "not talking". The SP presented reams of documentation to the courts to buttress the grand jury subpoenas and the courts stated they were not abusive but necessary.