White House informant? Defense lawyers say an insider has been helping in CIA leak investigation

However, as to "proof" of statements by general public persons, are you suggesting that Andrea Mitchell (or others in similar circumstances) would have to provide sworn affidavits or notarized statements otherwise that they knew what they knew or did not?

I mean, the "proof" can be as simple -- as it is with all media -- of someone telling another person and often with promise of anonymity.

In social circles, it's an understanding that there's a great deal of anonymity to the sort of table, cocktail talk that Mitchell referred to. Certain social relationships are contingent upon the understanding that you only speak about certain things with those you know well enough on a gradual scale of trust and reliability...the more skillful understand how to capitalize upon those understandings by saying what they WANT repeated to those they know to be the least reliable in that social scheme of trust or untrust. The greater the social privilege and regard, generally, the greater the trust...you share what's understood to be mutually accessible information and yet it's to be excluded from others' awareness.

Which is what the social scene is in D.C., I am sure, as it is in other areas of society. Andrea Mitchell is probably somewhere in the option invite circle but that'd include, once invited, the fact that she'd be relied upon to publicly refer to some information but could be relied upon to not name names.

That's my take on it.

Most people would NOT want to add their name to any recorded litany regarding Joe Wilson and wife under these circumstances. People are not, almost certainly have not been, eager to be affiliated with them in any recorded fashion, such as "may I have your name, please" circumstances BECAUSE they'd only share what they knew within that more privileged social environment I just described: one in which people would later share what they knew but would never (dare to) reveal who told them or to use names, specifically. And, anyone who would need to ask for a name would be displaying that they were not included in the social group/s, and thus, wouldn't be included in any confessional or revealing, personal revelations. Thus, it's far from likely that neighbors' and such would leave their names as sources for knowing or not knowing Valerie Plame and where she worked, BUT THAT certain social circles would be discussing it within their circle of social influence.

Thus, I can respect Andrea Mitchell saying, to the effect, "EVERYone's talking about it, EVERYone knew" and similar and, OF COURSE, not then including on national television or otherwise before those NOT in certain social relationships, the names of who said what about the person and when. Just generally referring to "everyone" or "the people there" or "when I was visiting...(omitting anyone specific person's home or address or office unless it was with a mutual person of trust)..."

If there are indictments of anyone in the Bush administration on the original "outing" charge, a good place for the defense team to start would be to get a copy of the "amici curiae" brief that more than 40 media organizations filed in the Miller/Cooper case. They argued - persuasively, in my opinion, and on many counts - that there was no underlying crime under that statute. They argued that:

1. Plame was not covert, as defined by the statute, within the requisite time-frame.

2. Plame's identity had repeatedly been compromised on prior occasions.

3. The CIA was not actively protecting her identity; indeed, the brief argued that the choice of Wilson for the Niger assignment showed the agency to be extremely careless in protecting Plame's identity. They also argued that she had a highly visible desk job, and that her comings and goings to the agency were readily apparent.

4. The statute was not intended to cover casual conversations between reporters and government employees. They cited a document - written to Congress by the authors of the statute - explaining that the law was only intended to cover willful exposure of an agent's identity for the purpose of harming the United States of America, and was not to be employed to stifle normal contacts between reporters and government employees when discussing policy issues or other matters of government.

5. Wilson was described as a poor choice for the assignment, a choice which would immediately raise questions and ultimately lead to the revelation of Plame's role and identity.

You cannot sue a sitting president for actions done while president. Clinton already proved that. (My apologies for the C-word)

Would Carville rat out his childrens mother?....probably.

Here's a list of those who have testified.

Listed among the witnesses who have testified...

Stranger who stopped Novak in the street

Everybody else is listed by name. Interesting that this particular person remains unidentified...

Spent some time reading the comments following the posting. Now, I need to take a shower...

Sorry to get into your conversation. I have been carefully following what you say. Do you remember a very short piece of video which was put out on FOS of a judge being questioned about this matter. I had never seen him before or since. I do not know the relationship he had to this case, but,....He said that Fitzgeralds investigation was moving into areas not before seen....or something to the equivalent of that. This D.C. judge was very, very concerned with the direction the case was going.

I do not know how to take his remarks. Did you see this interview and know anything about it?

She may not have been covert under the statute, but she was a covert agency employee.

Correct. She had been a NOC. Therefore, so far as agency security protocol is concerned, she will always be a NOC.

Two years ago there was a story in National Review Online that a NRO reporter was informed by an acquaintance - a Democrat - that Plame's role at the CIA was well-known IN SOME CIRCLES

I believe the source you are referring to ("a Democrat") was Andrea Mitchell.

She apparently had a social relationship with Miss Valerie.

Unfortunately, I think the direction this is heading might be toward conspiracy. If they knew she was undercover, that's classified information and if they discussed leaking it...that's what I think he's going after at this point.

I don't believe that's how it happened, but I think that's what Fitzgerald might believe. It's hard to sort through fact and fiction with everything coming out, but I think that's where this is going.

that she wasn't a covert operative within the specified timeframe.

I think Joe Wilson stated that on one of the Sunday morning talkshows also!

Ken Starr redux.