I also thought about how unlikely a charge of treason is this day in age - although this bastard is every bit deserving of the charge. Think about how 50% of the public would react if Bush's administration tried to charge someone with treason. The Democrats would cry foul and call it partisan. They would smear Bush far more than we've seen thus far even. It would be UGLY.
Cicero observed: "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gate is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves among those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very hall of government itself … he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist."
I didn't mean to keep you up, LOL. Yes, it is nice to have the Internet to save research time and costs! 15+ years ago there's no way I could've gone through the newspaper archives required for this in any reasonable amount of time.
My perception is that the government has gotten gun-shy on charging anyone with treason since McCarthy, and the charge now seems to be reserved for cases where intelligence agents are caught spying red-handed with surveillance evidence to back up the charges, like with Ames and Hannsen. But when it comes to leaks, it seems to be almost impossible to bring about a successful prosecution. I was reading the other day that the CIA files about 1,000 leak complaints a year and almost none ever result in a conviction.