[tet68]

In his final paragraph, he says he “might have” let Cooper and Miller off the hook “[w]ere the leak at issue in this case less harmful to national security.” "

So the outing of Plame was harmful to "national security"?
I find it hard to reconcile with the numerous times liberal/socialists have revealed covert names and actually
caused the deaths agents with out suffering consequences.

[churchillbuff]

I find it hard to reconcile with the numerous times liberal/socialists have revealed covert names and actually caused the deaths agents with out suffering consequences."""

What leaker, who caused deaths, went unprosecuted?

[churchillbuff]

So the outing of Plame was harmful to "national security"? """

Apparently a bipartisan panel of federal judges, having revealed secret evidence that neither you nor I nor Rush nor O'Donnell has seen, think it may have.

[YaYa123]

I think feedback at # 31 is on to something too, at least as far as theorizing the illegal outing of Plame is not the serious national security threat which Fitzgerald used to convince the 3 judge panel to jail reporters, if they refused to testify. There has to be another, bigger crime. OR could it be Fitzgerald was looking to indict the Vice President for outting Plame? Now THAT would qualify as a BIG crime, worthy of all those redacted pages Fitzgerald sent to the 3 judge panel.

Considering his reputation, I can't imagine Fitzgerald would use over the top, hyperbolic language to sway those judges. He had all those redacted pages of proof he was after something big, something that affected our national security.

Perdogg at #34 raises another question when he writes: "the proscecuter goes to the gJ and asks if there is enough evidence to issue a bill of indictment on preponderance of the evidence. 12 jurors out of 16-23 must vote in the affirmative to carry the bill of indictment. This is according to Rule 6(e)."

According to all accounts I've read, Fitzgerald hasn't decided yet whether to issue indictments or not, which defies logic, considering the language Fitzgerald used to convince the 3 judge panel to let him jail reporters to force their testimony. Has the GJ voted already? Do they have to vote, or could Fitzgerald simply say "thanks" and send them packing without voting? The Grand Jury doesn't meet again till Wednesday.

One thing for certain, finding 12 DC jurors out of 16, who would vote to indict any Bush administration member, would not be hard at all.

I go from optimistic to gloomy doom. Mostly, I just want this suspense to end.