Maybe they didn't know the information was unauthorized.

Scott Johnson seems a glutton for punishment. Maybe he reads the NYTimes for Lent.

However it happened, he connects some dots in this story, "Pro-Israel lobbying group roiled by prosecution of two ex-officals." and a case that may be brewing against the Gray Lady herself.

Johnson writes:

I write below about the Washington Post story on the current investigation and prosecution of illegal leaks. The only pending prosecution is the one involving two former AIPAC officials who are charged with violating 18 U.S.C. section 793, one of the broader provisions of the Espionage Act that certainly applies to the Times's disclosure of the NSA al Qaeda-related surveillance program. As is customary for the Times, no connection is drawn between this prosecution for conduct far less injurious to the national security of the United States and the Times's own legal jeopardy for the NSA story. The story, however, does carry this pointed quote from the federal judge presiding over the prosecution of the former AIPAC officials:

"Persons who have unauthorized possession, who come into unauthorized possession of classified information, must abide by the law," the judge, T. S. Ellis III, said. "That applies to academics, lawyers, journalists, professors, whatever."

Reporters Scott Shane and David Johnston relegate the truth to this quote in the middle of their story, leaving readers to make the connection to the Times's own conduct on their own.

Aw, come on! How can you claim that a leak to the press is "unauthorized possession." I used to make arguments like that when I was a public defender. They didn't work very well then either.

The NYTimes is used to winning on First Amendment cases. I wonder if they'll give up their real sources now, or just accuse a patsy like Scooter Libby. This could put a kind in the "Democrats are more concerned about national security" claim this November.