The secrecy doesn't end just because you're no longer covert, though. Why go down that road? Rove did not say she was covert. That's the end of it, unless and until they can prove that someone else outted her.
Let me tell you where this is really leading, and where the prosecutor is headed. He's hoping that he can catch someone in a lie. He doesn't give a damn whether she was illegally outted or not. It's a crime to lie under oath to a grand jury, and even if Rove did not out Plame, he can be prosecuted if he told a lie to the grand jury.
Of course, that has nothing to do with the hubbub in the media. They have no idea what Rove told the grand jury.
The law recognizes a timeframe, that is a fact. I have personaly surmised she wasn't covert and hadn't been for a long time, but obviously am not in a position to say definitively. In addition to whether she was or wasn't and if the timeframe fit, in comes the other criteria of "knowingly", etc. I just object to your all-purpose "we" and "our side" lumping when that is not fair or true.
Rove did not say she was covert.
Of course he didn't. The idea that he would have or could have is ludicrous and always has been.
Let me tell you where this is really leading, and where the prosecutor is headed. He's hoping that he can catch someone in a lie.
The judges who have looked at this have specifically said they would not allow a fishing expedition and that the reporters needed to testify. That doesn't sound like Fitzgerald looking for perjury.
I won't be arrogant enough to say "Let me tell you where this is leading", but I do think I have a better idea than you.