That I get and understand. What I meant is that you're talking, but not talking, or vice versa.I restrained by a Court Order
Let me try that another way. For those that hold Security Clearances, they can neither confirm nor deny the existence, on non-existence, of information. Yet, many times it is not very hard to determine the essence of everything going on simply by observing their actions, non-actions, associations, work habits and so on. Individuals with a clearance are also bound by law to remain mum or face severe penalties up to and including jail time. However, these people still have great liberty and have great freedoms to speak about many aspects of their jobs without breaking the law. I witness it every day. And these folks pass polygraphs tests over and over.
To speak in generalities, in tongues, in analogies and in a dozen other ways certainly doesn't seem as if would violate the T's&C's of an order. I surely haven't read your specific order. You have. Without naming specific dates, specific names and/or some very specific details, I contend that it is possible to lay out what is in the report. Your [seemingly] overly-conservative position is a little puzzling, that's all.
Cipriano laid out a beautiful story of what he apparently saw that was somehow leaked. By whom and how...doesn't matter. He states that Greg Paw and Frank Fina exchanged emails and information. Super data and very precise. Why couldn't you simply say something to the effect that member(s) of the Freeh Staff were routinely communicating directly with the Prosecution staff in the OAG? No specifics were given. No names involved. Not even the method of communication was provided. How that is in contempt of anything remains a mystery to most of us.
Perhaps you could accidentally forget to carry out a copy some random Friday evening after dining at Birchrunville Cafe