#1. The CIA has only an obligation to take "affirmative action" to conceal Plame's identity, which they did when they sent her abroad as an employee of Brewster-Jennings rather than as an employee of the CIA. That they were sloppy in their concealment in other areas may not matter. That sloppiness is shocking, but it doesn't mean they weren't trying to conceal her identity from, say, Aramco, nor does it imply that they were unsuccessful in doing so. Nor does it mean that Libby wasn't releasing her name in an attempt to punish Wilson for his comments on Niger.
#2. Not only were the last 3 charges absent from his original letter, even the first two were absent. I don't think Fitzgerald was being sly. I think he was just being a normal, competent prosecutor asking for clarification of Comey's original letter, which seems surprisingly nonspecific to me.
Re your #1:
I maintain that "'affirmative action' to conceal Plame's identity" is diametrically opposed to
a) apparent "sloppiness" (exposure of her to Cubans) and
b) apparent "ineptitude" (among other things, not signing WoeJoe to secrecy re his Niger junkett, which would obviously lead to exposure of his wife).
By the mere fact that the CIA was unsuccessful in these regards, Val's cover- whether deep, light, NOC, or Burberry- was blown long before Libby leaked her name to any reporter. Then there's the interesting matter mentioned in the amici curiae, of CIA officials (whoops, almost wrote, "ofal")talking about Plame to "reporters" before Libby did.
And anyway, what kind of a lame brain is married to a well-recognized public official, works for the CIA, and wants to keep it a secret by driving to Langley 5 days a week?
At the skimpiest, we have: (former) Amb. Wilson ... wife, Val ... Val drives to Langley. Pretty transparent, wouldn't you say? The connecting dots are linear, not at all loose confetti.
Re your #2: You make a great point! Comey's original letter to Fitz lacked ANY specificity. For the general public to understand what Fitz' original directives were, we have to delve into the final, formal indictment- not what most of us are likely to do and not what MSM is likely to thoroughly report; but he never referrences those 2 original charges, again!!! Is it b/c "no true bill" was found by the GJ (so Fitz cannot, by law, referrence them?) or, more likely to my fevered mind, he chose or was told not to pursue them?