Well now, that's a question that has been asked for a long time. The only answer that I've read about that makes any sense at all is that while Plame was not specifically classified as "covert," she was in fact an agent under "non-official cover." Whether exposing a NOC is against the law or not, I do not know. But I suspect it might be. Otherwise, why would the Justice Department assign a special prosecutor to the case?
"Well now, that's a question that has been asked for a long time. The only answer that I've read about that makes any sense at all is that while Plame was not specifically classified as "covert," she was in fact an agent under "non-official cover." Whether exposing a NOC is against the law or not, I do not know. But I suspect it might be. Otherwise, why would the Justice Department assign a special prosecutor to the case?"
You don't know what you are talking about. NOC is the most covert cover.
I have said why a SP was assigned--because of the media and Dem attention.
The orginal referral was almost certainly a matter or rote. The CIA sends the DOJ similarly referrals more than once a week. They clearly don't go into too great a depth in checking out the seriousness of the situation. That's what the DOJ is for.
Doubtful. NOC is the deepest cover that CIA creates. The appearance of a NOC is "no connection with CIA." Plame was publicly a WMD analyst for CIA, therefore was not NOC.
Whether exposing a NOC is against the law or not, I do not know.
It is. Criminalizing the exposure of NOCs was the purpose of 50 USC 421 et seq.
... why would the Justice Department assign a special prosecutor to the case?
This case was coughed up by DoJ to an independent counsel based on political pressure from the DEMs. If Libby hadn't given Fitz a bone to chew on, the referral would be dead, today.