Finally, the new information once again highlights the importance of the testimony of journalists in uncovering whether anyone might have broken the law by disclosing classified information regarding Plame. That is because both Rove and I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, the chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney—who are at the center of the Plame investigation—have said that they did not learn of Plame's employment with the CIA from classified government information, but rather journalists; without the testimony of journalists, prosecutors have been unable to get to the bottom of the matter.
Certainly part of this investigation is what did Rove/Libby tell journalists. That is, were they the leakers? This is where the "journalist protecting source" stuff comes in.
The other part of this now is, obviously, "what did journalists tell Rove/Libby?" I know I'm just a blogger with limited ethics, but I have no idea how this falls under any kind of source protection concept. It'd be one thing if it were some double super secret that Rove and Libby ever talked to the press. That is, if they were genuine whistleblowers such that the very fact that they talked to the press at all was secret. But apparently part of their testimony involves admitting they talked to journalists and claiming those journalists told them that Plame was a CIA op.
This falls under source confidentiality protection how? I can't think of any reason that Judith Miller shouldn't answer the following question:
Did you inform Karl Rove or Scooter Libby that Joe Wilson's wife was a CIA operative?
There's no source confidentialy issue there at all, not even in the fevered imagination of Bill Keller.