concern Miller. There really isn't anything new in the article. Very few, if any, of the journalists who have written about the Plame investigation know what sort of evidence and legal arguments the special prosecutor has. However, there are four people who have reviewed the evidence and legal arguments and then written about the case. Here is some of what they wrote.
Chief Judge Hogan of the D.C. district court wrote:
In his ex parte affidavit, Special Counsel outlines in great detail the developments in this
case and the investigation as a whole. The ex parte affidavit establishes that the government’s focus has shifted as it has acquired additional information during the course of the investigation. Special Counsel now needs to pursue different avenues in order to complete its investigation. Through the ex parte affidavit, the Court has determined that the subpoenas were not issued in an attempt to harass the movants, but rather stem from legitimate needs due to an unanticipated shift in the grand jury’s investigation.
http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/04-ms-460.pdf It is obvious from Judge Hogan's opinion that Fitzgerald is investigating crimes other than just the leak of Plame's identity.
And Judge Tatel of the Court of Appeals wrote this:
In sum, based on an exhaustive investigation, the special counsel has established the need for Miller’s and Cooper’s testimony. Thus, considering the gravity of the suspected crime and the low value of the leaked information, no privilege bars the subpoenas. . . .
One last point. In concluding that no privilege applies in this case, I have assigned no importance to the fact that neither Cooper nor Miller, perhaps recognizing the irresponsible (and quite possibly illegal) nature of the leaks at issue, revealed Plame’s employment, though Cooper wrote about it after Novak’s column appeared. Contrary to the reporters’ view, this apparent self-restraint spares Miller and Cooper no obligation to testify.
Indeed, Cooper’s own Time.com article illustrates this point. True, his story revealed a suspicious confluence of leaks, contributing to the outcry that led to this investigation. Yet the article had that effect precisely because the leaked information—Plame’s covert status—lacked significant news value. In essence, seeking protection for sources whose nefariousness he himself exposed, Cooper asks us to protect criminal leaks so that he can write about the crime. The greater public interest lies in preventing the leak to begin with. Had Cooper based his report on leaks about the leaks—say, from a whistleblower who revealed the plot against Wilson—the situation would be different. Because in that case the source would not have revealed the name of a covert agent, but instead revealed the fact that others had done so, the balance of news value and harm would shift in favor of protecting the whistleblower. Yet it appears Cooper relied on the Plame leaks themselves, drawing the inference of sinister motive on his own. Accordingly, his story itself makes the case for punishing the leakers. While requiring Cooper to testify may discourage future leaks, discouraging leaks of this kind is precisely what the public interest requires.
. . .
Were the leak at issue in this case less harmful to national security or more vital to public debate, or had the special counsel failed to demonstrate the grand jury’s need for the reporters’ evidence, I might have supported the motion to quash. Because identifying appellants’ sources instead appears essential to remedying a serious breach of public trust, I join in affirming the district court’s orders compelling their testimony.
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200502/04-3138a.pdfThis portion of Judge Tatel's opinion followed several pages of redacted material which contained Fitzgerald's arguments and supporting evidence. Fitzgerals seems to have convinced Judge Tatel that crimes were committed.
I was particularly intrigued by Judge Tatel's reference to "the plot against Wilson." Sounds like a conspiracy to me.