[oceanview]

if Gertz knows he has "asked to testify" - then the FBI surely knows who he is already. why shouldn't he simply be arrested tomorrow if that is the case?

[Cboldt]

if Gertz knows he has "asked to testify" - then the FBI surely knows who he is already. why shouldn't he simply be arrested tomorrow if that is the case?

If that's the case, he should be. Otherwise, the president is letting the leaker push him around.

[CurlyBill]

You have to wonder if this is the person who leaked the information originally and is now taking on the label "whistleblower" ...

[antonico]

The word "testify" is interesting. "Testify", to whom? Congress, presumably? And isn't it interesting that all of a sudden we have a "whistleblower" (the left's spin word de jour) ready to "testify" before congress (now that conservatives have been blasting all over the net that the provisions for a "whistelblower" are provided for by going to Congress first, not the New York Times). HUGE scramble of CYA going on now by the left illegal leakers, in my humble opinion.

[TomGuy]

if Gertz knows he has "asked to testify" - then the FBI surely knows who he is already. why shouldn't he simply be arrested tomorrow if that is the case?

If he knows anyone knows who he is, you can bet he is cutting a deal. Just like Sandy Bergler did.

This will fizzle like most of the other governmental scandals of the last 15 years. Neither party can allow much investigation and adjudication, because it would impact too many -- and they cover for each other.

[Dave S]

if Gertz knows he has "asked to testify" - then the FBI surely knows who he is already. why shouldn't he simply be arrested tomorrow if that is the case?

For what? Sending a letter requesting to testify under the whistleblower statute to the heads of the Senate and House intelligence committees. The FBI has to connect him to the NYT. Although fact that his letter is dated same day as NYT first published the leak does look suspicious.