Here are some things I think about the case so far:

I don’t think a crime was committed, according to the actual law, and I sincerely doubt that the White House intended to “out” Plame as a way to punish Joe Wilson. I think this was a theory largely burped out of one of the folds of Joe Wilson’s Jabba-the-Hut sized ego). I think Fitzgerald was bullied into this prosecution by a feverishly anti-Bush media feeding frenzy. I think this prosecution — seen from the outside — makes no sense. I think Firtzgerald had better have a good reason for what he’s doing or it will kill his political career.

I also think it is simply outrageous that people think journalists should have flat-out immunity to commit a whole range of crimes. Let’s assume the conspiracy theorists are essentially right. The White House deliberately “outed” a CIA operative, knowingly putting her life in danger (which always sounded like a lot of hype, but again, let’s assume it’s true). Well, why do we have these laws on the books? To protect the lives of CIA agents. Right? Well, why on earth should a journalist have the right to be an accomplice to a crime? If it’s against the law for Karl Rove to put a CIA agent’s life in jeopardy, it should also be against the law for Bob Novak, or Judith Miller or Matt Cooper to do it. It should also be against the law for journalists to knowingly help someone commit such a crime. Doctors have special privileges, but they don’t include aiding and abetting crimes. Psychiatrists have special privileges, but they musty take affirmative steps to prevent a patient from hurting others. Why should journalists be exempt from such requirements?

Again, Fitzgerald has made a mistake for pursuing journalists so aggressively if he doesn’t have a really, really good reason. But the principle still holds that if Fitzgerald has a really, really good reason journalists shouldn’t be exempt from testifying.