Do the leakers really have the guts to bear the traitor's penalty?

Now someone has leaked the entire transcripts to the Washington Post of President Trump's phone calls with leaders of other nations. Jeff Sessions is stepping up efforts to investigate and prosecute these criminal leaks. Ace of Spades writes,

I think the Washington Post's reporters who published the transcripts of Trump's phone calls will be the first test case for these subpoenas, and for subsequent incarceration for contempt of court when they refuse to comply. This happened with Judith Miller, after all, in a fairly trivial case.

I don't see how a judge can say that gratuitously leaking a transcript of a confidential phone call with a world leader- - which makes all other world leaders fear if they can speak to Trump and have their own words remain confidential -- is not a national security concern and then refuse to hit a non-complying reporter with time in jail until he divulges his sources.

Well, actually, I can see that, but given that judges do this a fair amount in less serious cases, the judge refusing to do that would essentially be announcing an insurrection.

The other outfit that needs to worry is the New York Times, which outrageously disclosed the name of the CIA's Iran team for no reason except #TheResistance.

Again, no judge can claim that did not jeopardize national security or expose intelligence operatives to risk.

After those two low-hanging fruit cases -- assuming judges do their duty and jail reporters until they divulge sources, and assuming subsequent prosecutions of the leakers -- there would be a very serious reconsideration among #TheResistance as to whether they really have the guts for full treason and insurrection, and really have the fortitude to bear the traitor's penalty.

Read more here.