That is one interpretation of the ambiguous statement in the indictment. The other interpretation is that her "status," be it desk-jocky, covert, or whatever, is classified information.
If she was covert under the meaning of 50 USC 421, which you say the indictment asserts (but note, the indictment offers no additional support for the assertion as you take it), then Libby is only one step from breaking the act.
Section 421. Protection of identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sourcesThe only missing element would be Libby knowing (or not) that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States.(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had access to classified information that identifies covert agent
Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
You're confused, I never said she was "covert". In fact I've been saying quite the opposite, that she wasn't (but may be now if she's stil employed by CIA).
Furthermore (and solely as a technical matter), there will never be any further proof or validation of her "classified" status, precisely because her status is and was classified. And that's not a tautology, either: "classfied" means "classified", and not subject to public scrutiny.
You're also getting confused by reading the U.S. Code on this matter.
Two conditions drive the legal definition of "covert" status: (1) a "classified" intellegence position, irrespective of the actual job duties (e.g., your file or assignment is properly marked Secret or Top Secret or whatever); and (2) foreign service in the last five years. Period.
You should read the entire Intelligence Identities Protection Act rather than parsing and inferring from the U.S. Code.
One further comment:
A) As a potential violator, Libby met legal Test #1 of the Act by having a classified position, and learning of Plame's employment (though not necessarily status) through classified channels.
B) Plame must have held a legally "covert" status in order for Libby to be liable under the Act.
Now here's what defines "covert":
C) Plame is said to have held a "classified" position, both in the indictment and verbally by Fitzgerald. That meets Test #1 of the "covert" definition.
3) It is unknown whether Plame engaged in foreign service during the preceding five years, which is Test #2 for "covert" status under the Act.
You are correct that Libby was "only one step away from breaking the Act", but you're correct for the wrong reasons.
Since Libby met Test #1 as a violator, it must be his Test #2 that gets him off the hook, e.g., Plame's status. So we must infer that since Plame did indeed hold a "classified" position (this has been stated by Fitzgerald),she was not legally "covert" due to the foreign service requirement.
As I've been saying, she's in France now. Is that "foreign service"?
Isn't what's missing here evidence that Plame was a "covert" agent within the meaning of the law?