...a prosecution may hinge on whether the one-time college Young Republican turned 2004 Democratic campaign contributor was "a do-gooder who thinks that something wrong occurred"

Didn't all those people who actively and deliberately participated in the program think of themselves as do-gooders who were acting in the best interests of the country, despite being aware that they might be operating outside the law?

We've said this until we're blue in the face: No one is above the law. Obama has to make sure that Tamm is not prosecuted. Of course, to do that, he has to show that was was being done was definitely illegal. Since no one wants to be spied on, he'll have a captive, sympathetic audience.

I'm hoping that more people will come forward to seal the deal.

on FISA and telecom immunity, wouldn't he?

this is wonderful too -- and from Newsweek, surprisingly --

GAY MARRIAGE: Our Mutual Joy

Let's try for a minute to take the religious conservatives at their word and define marriage as the Bible does. Shall we look to Abraham, the great patriarch, who slept with his servant when he discovered his beloved wife Sarah was infertile? Or to Jacob, who fathered children with four different women (two sisters and their servants)? Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel—all these fathers and heroes were polygamists. The New Testament model of marriage is hardly better. Jesus himself was single and preached an indifference to earthly attachments—especially family. The apostle Paul (also single) regarded marriage as an act of last resort for those unable to contain their animal lust. ...

First, while the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman. And second, as the examples above illustrate, no sensible modern person wants marriage—theirs or anyone else's —to look in its particulars anything like what the Bible describes. "Marriage" in America refers to two separate things, a religious institution and a civil one, though it is most often enacted as a messy conflation of the two. As a civil institution, marriage offers practical benefits to both partners: contractual rights having to do with taxes; insurance; the care and custody of children; visitation rights; and inheritance. As a religious institution, marriage offers something else: a commitment of both partners before God to love, honor and cherish each other—in sickness and in health, for richer and poorer—in accordance with God's will. In a religious marriage, two people promise to take care of each other, profoundly, the way they believe God cares for them. Biblical literalists will disagree, but the Bible is a living document, powerful for more than 2,000 years because its truths speak to us even as we change through history. In that light, Scripture gives us no good reason why gays and lesbians should not be (civilly and religiously) married—and a number of excellent reasons why they should. ...