Well said, and I couln't agree more. Heck this is how the article that is the subject of this thread began:
Federal prosecutors have accepted an offer from presidential adviser Karl Rove to give 11th-hour testimony in the case of a CIA officer's leaked identity but have warned they cannot guarantee he won't be indicted, according to people directly familiar with the investigation.
The persons, who spoke only on condition of anonymity because of grand jury secrecy...
It's supposed to be against the law to lead grand jury testimony, but we won't see any 2-yr investigations or indictments about these leaks. Washington is a town that is a swamp of leaks. If every danged technically criminal leak was investigated, nothing else would get done in that town [which might not be a bad thing ;-) ].
Everything I've read about the statute that applies to the Plame name leak appears to indicate that no law was broken. So all that's left is some trumped-up consipracy and/or obstruction of justice charge, and that old standy of special prosecutors, perjury.
As far as I'm concerned, there should be no jeopardy of perjury if the matter at the heart of the investigation is not a crime.
Speaking of leaks, just a few months ago, the NYT gleefully blew the cover off of an entire CIA operation to transport captured terrorists to various places for interrogation. There was no media outcry, no demand for an investigation, no complaints that national security was compromised, no concerns that agents in the field were compromised, nothing.