You are simply incorrect on the basis for which an investigation is requested. There are many reasons why the CIA would refer a case to the DOJ, and the potential (read that again...potential, not actual) revelation about an agent's status is just one of the reasons.
I just explained in post #87 and Bubba_Leroy (in post #85) has a link to an interview with former CIA Director James Woolsey who say:
WOOLSEY: No. I think that's normally what they'd do in an investigation. CIA refers crimes report over about once a week to the Department of Justice whenever there's a leak or any other potential violation of law that they come across.Please review my comments and the link to Director Woolsey's interview and reply accordingly.
And it's relatively routine thing. These leaks get investigated all the time. Occasionally somebody gets caught, but it's pretty rare. It's a lot rarer any directors of Central Intelligence would wish.
Pretend you're the CIA. Suddenly, out of the blue, a newspaper columnist announces that the wife of a former US Ambassador is in fact a CIA operative.
There are two basic reactions that you, as the CIA, can have to this 'revelation'.
The first possible reaction is that you don't particularly care, because you know that this woman has nothing at all to do with the CIA. She doesn't work for you, and never has. Which means that no field agents can possibly be blown by the columnist's allegations, since by definition, no field agents can be traced back to the ambassador's wife.
You can even announce publically that she is not a CIA operative, and not care if no one believes you, simply because you know you're telling the truth.
So realistically, your decision is to do absolutely nothing. You don't call for an investigation of the 'leak', because you know there hasn't been a leak. Which means that asking the Department of Justice to investigate is not only a waste of time, but has the potential of making your agency look stupid, since the first question any competent investigator is going to ask will: was she or was she not a CIA operative?
When you respond "No", the second question is going to be "Then what exactly are we investigating? A reporting screw up?". The third will be "And why the hell are you wasting our time?"
Now, the second possible reaction is one of pure fury, since the ambassador's wife is indeed a CIA operative whose cover has been blown for no real reason. Under those circumstances, your own agents would be calling for your head on a platter if there *wasn't* an investigation into who exactly within the government leaked top secret, confidential information.
WOOLSEY: No. I think that's normally what they'd do in an investigation. CIA refers crimes report over about once a week to the Department of Justice whenever there's a leak or any other potential violation of law that they come across.
If Valerie Plame isn't a CIA operative, then there's no potential crime here at all . None. If the leak isn't true to begin with, it's not really much of a leak, is it?
In this case, there simply isn't any room for any potential violations of the law, from the CIA's point of view. Valerie Plame was either an agent, or she wasn't. If she wasn't, then there's no crime. And if she was, then an investigation needed to be called.