DOJ goes after climategate leaker/s

  Instead of being interested in stopping voter fraud, the United States DOJ is pursuing whoever leaked the latest very embarrassing Climategate 2 emails which expose the ego, profit and fraud involved in trying to establish global warming as a reason to redistribute wealth of the Western nations to "mother earth's" poorer children states.
  From the Washington Examiner:

The leaked records derailed “cap-and-trade” legislation in the U.S. and, internationally, as well as talks for a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. The emails and computer code were produced with taxpayer funds and held on taxpayer-owned computers both in the US and the UK, and all were subject to the UK Freedom of Information Act, the U.S. Freedom of Information Act and state FOIA laws.
They also were being unlawfully withheld in both the UK (by the University of East Anglia) and the U.S. (Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), including stonewalling me for two years, and three other requesters for longer).

   One of the individuals being pursued can be found over here in England, who was the first to report on Climategate 2. Updates on his condition can be found here.

  Delingpole, quoting Horner at the Examiner and commenting, wonders why the Obama DOJ is so eager to find a guy who was doing a public service and is "immune from prosecution."

Norfolk PD affirmed to the subject of at least one of their raids that this international law enforcement hunt is for the leaker, meaning not for those whose acts the leaker exposed by making public emails containing admissions in their own words. 

That last paragraph of Horner's addresses a conundrum which has been puzzling quite a few of us, viz: why are all these public resources being wasted on the pursuit of somebody who, even if the police catch him, has no case whatsoever to answer. If a whistleblower leaks information in the public interest – as Climategate and Climategate 2.0 clearly are – then he is pretty much immune from prosecution. (Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998)

  Delingpole wonders why so much money and interest is being shown in these emails. Is there more to come?

In other words, there may be more juicy stuff – much, much more juicy stuff – to come. It may also be that the names incriminated are not merely those of low-rent types like Phil Jones and Michael Mann, but senior politicians and businessmen with much more to lose if they're ever found out.