As I said perhaps nearly two years ago when leaks started to become a big issue in the campaign season, it’s exceptionally difficult to prosecute the journalists who accept (and usually even collude and pursue) leaks because of first amendment considerations and a very long standing tradition of allowing the press to bird-dog politicians and government, BUT at that time we had no idea who the leakers were and we were hoping that someone did, or at least had methods for finding out.
What we suspected then is what we now have what virtually amounts to proof of; those in charge of investigating or prosecuting leakers inside our bureaucracies are not just negligent in failing to do so, they seem quite staunch on not doing those things in order to protect them.
If it weren’t for a few players who are not those mentioned above (IG, congress, a select and small group of investigative journalists) we would still be where we were nearly 2 years ago; Knowing only that there were leaks.
If the press can conspire with the enemy and print whatever they wish to the detriment of national security, then censorship boards established during wartime events would have been declared unconstitutional. Now, one can make the argument that we are technically "not at war", but then that would force the person advancing the point to treat a coup as something other than a highly leveraged revolution. Good luck.
However if laws appear to be broken journalists can and have been ordered by courts to reveal their sources and even put in jail under contempt when they refused.
Judith Miller spent 85 days in jail for refusing to reveal that her source in the Plame Affair was Scooter Libby.
The big problem is the Justice department is in effect being run by Obama thanks to Sessions.
In fact Muller just gave immunity to National Enquirer publisher David Pecker so he can force him to talk