So why – with a special prosecutor now threatening to toss Time magazine's Matthew Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller in jail if they don't give up their sources in the Plame case – aren't their lawyers invoking the "no laws were broken" defense?
Explains the National Review's Rich Lowry: The Miller-Cooper defense hasn't made this argument because it would be too embarrassing to admit that the Bush administration's "crime of the century" wasn't really a crime at all, especially after a year and a half of media chest-beating to the contrary.
"It was just a Washington flap played for all it was worth by the same news organizations now about to watch their employees go to prison over it," says Lowry.
"That's the truth that the media will go to any length to avoid."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1348716/posts
Lowery is just brilliant, isn't he? I love to read his articles.
But the Special Prosecutor isn't saying they have to give up their sources in the Rove/Plame case. The Special Prosecutor isn't saying anything. That's what THEY say, and the SP has asked folks to stay quiet, so no one is refuting that.
Yes, I did buy new tinfoil just the other day. lol
Pinz