Assuming the media got it...and I don't know how they would get it when no one else has been able to get it. The only way they'd have been able to get it, probably, is through some kind of leak or by someone specifically telling them they had in fact received it. That concerns me, that information about the expenditure of public money is accessible by only some. And I would think you would agree that where there's an expenditure of public money on an important case like that, the criteria should be public and the amount of money spent should be public, rather than having to rely on discretion.
On February 6th, 2007. See this statement in context.