[Kaslin]

Political implications, however, may prevent the filing of charges against either the leaker or the Times.

So should we just ignore this? I don't like this

[jdsteel]

(In my best Maggie Thatcher voice) NOW DON'T GET ALL WOBBLY ON US, AL!

[muawiyah]

Look, we've even got a pool of people ready for selection to "pull the switch" on whoever it is needs to be punished for treason in this case.

Time for Gonzales to get in gear and do what's right and proper.

[Maceman]

Political implications, however, may prevent the filing of charges against either the leaker or the Times.

Conservatives will just have to change the political calculation then, like we did with Janet Miers.

Time to get the VRWC mobilized.

[ken5050]

I expect that events and attacks yet to come..Iran nukes, the riots over the cartoons..may well shape events in ways we do not yet forsee..

[Cicero]

Political implications, IMHO, argue in favor of prosecution. It's the only way to put an end to these constant leaks being used to attack the administration. And it's the only way to clean out the human garbage who are using their positions to undermine the country they are pledged to serve.

As the quote from Charles Grassley suggests, the Plame case, known as "Leakgate" in the MSM, gives Bush a perfect opportunity to strike back. How can they complain about going after sources when the NY Times and the Washington Post have been urging Fitzgerald for two years to go after sources? How can they complain about persecuting reporters when the NY Times actually fired their own reporter for "entanglement" with government sources and never really complained about here jailing, more than pro forma?

There will never be a better opportunity than this. And it would energize Bush's base like nothing else, except for another good SCOTUS appointment.

[auto power]

Tim Russertt should be subpoenaed for his involvement!

[butternut_squash_bisque]

Spine of linguini, gut of Jello and no balls = RINO/ GOPer.

[FormerACLUmember]

The definitive intellectual analysis of the New York Times' actions:

[bism]

Get a rope!

[golfisnr1]

Arrest Rockefeller, throw him in jail, case closed.

[finnman69]

Make Pinch feel the pinch.

[frankiep]

So should we just ignore this? I don't like this

We've ignored just about every single other case of treason in the past 30 years. Why should this be any different?

[caisson71]

"Book'em Danno!"

[Cboldt]

Gonzales said, "... we will look at the evidence and if the evidence shows that a crime has been committed, we will move forward with prosecution."

Political implications, however, may prevent the filing of charges against either the leaker or the Times.

Two different cases, leaker is not the same as publisher. But note Gonzales' strong language, "if the evidence shows that a crime has been committed, we will move forward with prosecution." No equivocation, no political calculus, only that if the evidence is sufficient, prosecution will follow.

18 USC § 798. Disclosure of classified information

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information-- ...

(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; ...

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(b) As used in subsection (a) of this section--
The term "classified information" means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution; ...
The term "communication intelligence" means all procedures and methods used in the interception of communications and the obtaining of information from such communications by other than the intended recipients; ...

(d) (1) Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall forfeit to the United States irrespective of any provision of State law--
(A) any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as the result of such violation; and
(B) any of the person's property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, such violation.
(2) The court, in imposing sentence on a defendant for a conviction of a violation of this section, shall order that the defendant forfeit to the United States all property described in paragraph (1).

The NYT article is there for all to read. If the publication was of "classified information concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States," Gonzales has asserted that there WILL be a prosecution. Therefore, if there is no prosecution, either Gonzales was not telling the truth, or the evidence does not support a conclusion that the NYT violated the statute.

Prosecuting the leaker is a different prospect, as at this point we don't have a clear name of the leaker.

[Ursus arctos horribilis]

"N.Y. Times Probed in NSA Leak Case"

Hoping for a full body cavity searching "PROBE."

[thelastvirgil]

Newsmax has missed the boat this time; political considerations will be EXACTLY what drives any coming prosecution.

The majority of Americans, in spite of a lot of inherent stupidity, realize the damage done by the publication of this vitally secret information, and want the program used in our protection.

Any leaker or publisher of said information is on very thin ice in assuming the public will side with them on this issue.

[Pirate21]

Maybe this would be one case that the Senate Judiciary Committee would finally hold in closed session. "Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed." (John 3:20)

[Ann Archy]

BRING ON THE INVESTIGATION!!!