[lsbskins1]

But what about the rest of what I said? That was not the sum total of my point. Are you going to adress the other points, or ignore them? If it was so bleeding obvious no crime was committed, such an unassailable point of law, why did the investigation go on? On what grounds were the reporters compelled to give up their sources or go to jail? No crime, no contempt of court. If the Judge and the prosecutor did not know she was a "desk jockey", why were they not told? Why were they allowed to pursue a moot case all the way to the Supreme Court? Explain that to me please.