Any possibility his report would say Ms Plame's employment was common knowledge?
I would be very surprised if it did. If indictments are in fact brought against Rove and/or Libby under the IIPA, and the position of the prosecutor therefore is that Plame did meet the definition of "covert" under the Act, then at that point the defense may well challenge the allegation that she was "covert" within the meaning of the statute. Perhaps the scope of the definition of "covert" under the IIPA has been litigated before; I don't know. But I would think that the argument on the other side would be, even if her cover was blown in that it was known by journalists who closely follow the WMD beat, or even by the Russians as a result of an Ames disclosure or considered compromised by an inadvertent mistake in not using a secure communication protocol between embassies, that she might still be considered useful for a covert task in a some limited role. I think the Agency's determination of whether an agent was "covert" would be given deference, with the defense having to overcome a hurdle to prove it was not the case.