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.
I don't know what makes you think you have a better idea than me. Are you one of the prosecutors?
It's a time honored tradition for SP's to go after perjury when they don't have any other crime to prosecute. Yeah, sure the judges say they won't allow a fishing expedition. Why do you think they said that? Because they agree with me that it's headed in that direction.