Nothing to see here. Move along.
She wasn't covert at the time so there was no crime.
That being said, we shouldn't go around revealing every non-covert CIA agent to the world just because they aren't covert.
Unless, of course, there is a rationale to reveal that name. For example, if the fix was in from the beginning and the CIA agent got her husband an important job even though she knew he wasn't right for the job because of his partisian democratic nature.
Especially, if that non-covert agent cannot stop her husband from blabbing and lieing to the world about the covert job that the non-covert agent got him.
Who is Larry Johnson? He's the author of one of the more poorly timed op-eds in history. On July 10, 2001, he wrote in the New York Times under the headline "The Declining Terrorist Threat" that "Americans have little to fear" from terrorism unless they travel or work in a few of the world's hotspots.
I think you mean, "MoveOn."
This is NO different than the full-page add taken out by Presidential 'historian' scholar/experts when Bill Clinton was impeached. Their add tried to lessen the impeachability of Mister Clinton's offense (i.e., turning it into a debate on whether a blow-j*b is an impeachable offense versus the real offense--lying under sworn testimony) Their "statement of concern" basically said that what he did wasn't impeachable because so MANY other presidents had done similarly (I guess, they meant BJ's are commonplace in the White House).
Nevertheless, these 'formers' are nothing more than Clintonese butboys trying to continue making a mountain out of a mole hill. They are 'formers' because they weren't worth keeping. Five will get you ten they are all liberals and Democrats.