Since fully one-seventh of Tatel's opinion was redacted, presumably because it discussed secret evidence -- evidence that neither you, bucko, nor I have seen -- you're in no position to say that it's not "revelant" - since YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS, or to whom it might point.
It really irritating having to respond to taunts from somebody, like you, who shoots "knows it all" when he doesn't know jack.
LOL.
You're just doing what most of the DNC/MSM and their mouthpieces on the internet are doing: trying to make it look like some huge crime was committed that is going to be swept under the rug when Fitzgerald doesn't indict anyone.
Fitzgerald has commented about what this was about. It was that he needed Miller's testimony to wrap this whole thing up. Since he was charged to investigate the leak of Plame's name and the only law that would apply to that is the IIPA of 1982, we are safe in assuming that that is what this was all about.
You can jump up and down and go Larry Crazy O'Donnel, but there's all there is to it.
So sorry it didn't work out for you. Better luck next "crime."