Replies

"So you think she could've been "technically undercover" but not really undercover?"

Absolutely. Have you ever dealt with a bureaucracy?

"If she was overt, can you think of any reason in the world why they would agree not to bring that into a trial?"

I don't know who agreed to what. My understanding was that the pinhead judge made Plame's status off limits.

You are aware, I hope, that neither Libby nor anyone else is being charged with "outing" Plame. As an excercize, why don't you explain to me why that is so. Could it possibly be that she really *wasn't* "undercover"?

WRT her status and the trial - they had extensive CIPA hearings about what classified info could be used and what couldn't. In order for her status to be subject of CIPA, it had to be at least classified. It was stated in court that the decision not to admit her status was by stipulation. I can't think of any reason for Libby to stipulate to that if she was an overt desk jockey.

WRT prosecution for 'outing' - intent is an element. It seems plain that the reason Armitage didn't get charges with anything is that he came off as a big doofus who didn't know her status. Should he have checked it out? Sure. But that's not criminal - it would only involve revocation of clearance. I think, if she wasn't covert under IIPA, the same explanation applies wrt revealing classified info under Espionage Act - there must be proof of intent to release classified info. That would've been the biggest hurdle for any prosecution of those crimes.