[fluistulkn]

Just like the actual surveilance, we don't know enough about the background events ofthe NYT stories to determine if there has been a crime or not.

Just for instance, let us say the leaker revealed who was being target and how, but the NYT did not publish it.

The NYT might not have done anything wrong in that instance, but the leaker sure did.

Why are you so opposed to having an investigation, Samantha?

You seem to have concluded that there is no need to investigate the surveilance - you have already concluded the administration is guilty.

You also seem to have concluded that there is no need to investigate the leaks about the program - you have concluded that there was no classified material compromised.

Wouldn't it be more reasonable, in both cases, to wait for the facts, rather than pick the outcome you want to believe?

Matt