A Call for Vigilance

"But with today's developments, the political atmosphere could change."

And here's NBC's Norah O'Donnell on MSNBC yesterday: "Let's step back for a moment because this story is huge, and I say it has huge political ramifications because of the subject and what originally launched this whole case. This is about the justification that the president used to go to war in Iraq. . . .

"I think what's most stunning about the case is the involvement of Karl Rove, the president's deputy chief of staff, a senior political advisor . . . his strongest defender in the White House. . . .

"'This case has been on the verge of blowing up for months now and we are closer than ever to finding out just what Fitzgerald wants to do. Many people may be looking at . . . [the] legal issues about jailing reporters -- [but] this is about a potential scandal in the second term of the Bush administration, and just what the prosecutor, Fitzgerald, is up to, no one knows. But it could be huge."

Getting to the Bottom of It

Fitzgerald has been incredibly secretive about the case, where it's going, and why he's subpoenaing all these reporters. But being secretive is his job. He's a prosecutor. And federal law is clear that authorities are not allowed to divulge grand jury testimony.

But the witnesses are under no such constraints. It's been reported that Fitzgerald has asked witnesses not to talk about the case in public -- but that has no legal authority.

Prosecutors sometimes legitimately ask grand jury witnesses not to speak publicly so as to not tip off subjects or other witnesses. But Fitzgerald has declared that he is almost at the end of his investigation, and the subjects certainly know who they are by now. So that's pretty much moot.

In fact, the only people not getting tipped off are the members of the public, and it's time that stopped. Why is everyone keeping Fitzgerald's secrets for him? Enough!

For instance, if Cooper and Time are willing to divulge their sources to Fitzgerald, why not go public? What are they waiting for?

And the New York Times could answer some questions. For instance, have they contacted Miller's source and asked for an explicit waiver of confidentiality -- and been denied? That would be good to know. And if so, might that not properly put the pressure back on the White House, where it belongs? Wouldn't the Times be happier if the source came forward? Or is it in their interests to turn Miller into a martyr?

Similarly, the press should pressure President Bush to call on his aides to come forward and tell all they know.

Supreme Court Watch

Jim VandeHei and Peter Baker write in The Washington Post: "President Bush tried Wednesday to quell the conservative criticism engulfing Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales...