Gil Hamilton wrote: > I've never heard it disclosed how the prosecutor discovered that Miller had > had such a conversation but it isn't relevant anyway. The question is, can > she defy a subpoena based on membership in the privileged Reporter class that > an "ordinary" person could not defy? Why not? while Miller could well be prosecuted for revealing the identity, had she done so - she didn't. Why should *anyone* be jailed for failing to reveal who they had talked to in confidence? I am all in favour of people being tried for their actions, but not for thoughtcrimes.
>> On the other hand - Robert Novak got the same information, REPORTED it - >> and isn't in any sort of trouble at all. Somehow this isn't the issue >> though... and I wonder why? > I don't know this either; perhaps because he immediately rolled over when he > got subpoenaed? And yet Novak is the one who purportedly committed a crime - revealing the identity of an agent and thus endangering them. So the actual crime (of revealing) isn't important, but talking to a reporter is?