[Bahbah]

The question of whether Valerie Plame's employment by the Central Intelligence Agency was a secret is the key issue in the two-year investigation to determine if someone broke the law by leaking her CIA affiliation to the news media.

Where have these people been? According to Fitzgerald, it doesn't matter whether there was harm done to the country by the revelation, her classification status is immaterial, it's all about Libby lying about where he learned that she worked at the CIA and if he told anyone and then didn't tell Fitz that he did so.

[rightwingintelligentsia]

Of course. I just think it ironic that for months the drumbeat in the press was that "tremendous damage" was done by leaking Plame's "covert" status, and now that it's irrelevant they are finally willing to admit that she may not have been so covert after all.

[Lancey Howard]

Of course, it all goes to motive.

For Fitz to convince a jury that Fitz lied, rather than merely misspoke out of confusion (Libby's defense), he needs to demonstrate that Fitz had a reason to lie. Once the defense shows that Plame was known by friends, neighbors, and journalists all across the countryside to be an employee of the CIA, and NOT covert for at least five years prior to the time period of Novak's column, then the jury should reach the obvious conclusion that Libby had no reason to lie. Why would he lie?