[AntiGuv]

While I don't necessarily disagree with the basic premise here [that this is a tempest in a sweet-mint-tea-pot-dome], there's a glaring fallacy that I can't bring myself to leave unnoticed..

The person accused must have known "the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States." (Ah. Drat. There goes the case.)

Well, we don't know that since we don't know whether the person who revealed the info to Bob Novak or anyone else would've known Valerie Plame's precise status with the Agency. If the official in question knew she was an undercover case officer with the Directorate of Operations, then it inherently follows that this person knew "the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States."

* Robert Novak, the columnist who wrote the original column about Wilson's wife, said, "According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operative, and not in charge of undercover operatives."

Here's the transparent fallacy: Bob Novak isn't the person accused under the Intelligence Agents Identity Act, but rather whatever officials Novak spoke with. It is those officials - not Bob Novak - whose knowledge is relevant from a legal standpoint.

[AntiGuv]

Make that Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

[Diogenesis]

"What the hell do you mean, 'the leaker was a Democrat'.
Lie damn you because the California election is in only six days."

[Stultis]

If the official in question knew she was an undercover case officer with the Directorate of Operations, then it inherently follows

Except that we don't know that she was any such. This only appears (correct me) in the Newsday report from July, from an unidentified source.