[sarkozy]

Toensig assumes a lot about where Fitzgerald is going and what evidence he might have.
Just because she helped draft the law doesn't give her any insight into what, by all accounts, has been a leak-tight grand jury process. Contrast that to the Starr investigation, which seemed more intent on influencing news coverage through leaks than on conducting a criminal inquiry.
Fitzgerald, from all we hear, is a stand-up prosecutor, who deserves respect from the whole political spectrum for how he's conducted himself here.
We'll find out soon what he's found, or hasn't found, whether he writes a report or not. If he secures no indictment in the next two weeks we'll know he hasn't enough evidence to convince the grand jury (and save the that tired "ham sandwich" defense).
If the jury indicts, let the chips fall where they may.
All of Toensig's blathering about the media has absolutely nothing to do with what's going on in the grand jury room.

[Steve_Seattle]

"Contrast that to the Starr investigation, which seemed more intent on influencing news coverage through leaks than on conducting a criminal inquiry."

You probably haven't read "The Truth At All Costs," written about Starr by two former NYT and/or WP reporters, who pretty much concluded that Starr's alleged leaks were actually done by people in the Clinton camp. Nothing was ever leaked that wasn't already known by Clinton's lawyers. The tactic was to divert attention from Clinton's misdeeds and focus attention on Starr's alleged leaks. The strategy worked then, and it's apparently still working, seven years later.

[San Jacinto]

Contrast that to the Starr investigation, which seemed more intent on influencing news coverage through leaks than on conducting a criminal inquiry.

No, contrast the constant personal attacks by the clintoon's against Kenneth Starr with the dignified treatment accorded Fitzgerald by the Bush Administration.

And as far as Fitzgerald is concerned--the proof will be in the pudding. It is abundantly clear to everyone by now that there was no violation of the particular statute at issue. If he cooks ups some far fetched charge concerning some after-the-fact issue, he will reveal himself as more concerned with his own standing among the media elite than with anything else.

[okie01]

Contrast that to the Starr investigation, which seemed more intent on influencing news coverage through leaks than on conducting a criminal inquiry.

With the exception of Sam Dash (who was leaking privately -- to Clinton's defense team), Starr's team didn't leak either.

Instead, what you saw was an orchestrated campaign conducted by Clinton's witnesses and their attorneys, who were only too anxious to leak (often contrived) stories to the media. It is not illegal for witnesses and their attorneys to make their testimony public. In fact, they can even tell out-and-out lies about it with impunity (as Sid Blumenthal did).

The media was complicit in that they spun the stories so that it appeared their sources were within the grand jury itself or the prosecution team.

The same thing is going on now. The reporters and their attorneys are free to report their experience and speculations -- which is ALL they've got.