I found this shedding more light on the underlying issue ... WRT why Holder didn't actually need to get Rosen's records: he already knew who the leaker was, so there was no reason to go after Rosen's records. That would have been the only valid reason ... if that was a valid reason ... to need Rosen's records, i.e. to find the party who had perp'ed a criminal act.
The affidavit for the warrant precisely cites and quotes the Act, codified at 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1793, as the law Rosen is accused of violating as an “aider, abettor, or co-conspirator.”
The whole purpose of these investigations is to identify the leaker. Holder already knew who that was. Stephen Kim is named repeatedly in the affidavit for the warrant as the State Department employee who leaked the information to Rosen. This explains why two judges denied the warrant during Holder’s judge-shopping spree.
I keep thinking of the fact that Holder is in contempt of Congress for his refusal to comply with requests regarding F&F. Exactly what is supposed to be the penalty atttached to that? There has been none that I can tell.