First - revealing classified information, with nothing more, isn't a crime. There is an intent element to every crime involving revealing classified information, and not every revelation of classified information is a criminal act.
Second, you seem to be hung up on IIPA, which you correctly note no one was charged under. IIPA relates to the intentional revelation of covert identity. It does not cover the revelation of classified information that relates to persons other than covert ops within the statutory definition.
Third, the Court DID have two and a half months of CIPA hearings about what could and could not be revealed, and one of the outcomes of that was that Plame's status would not be a part of the case. Maybe you believe that courts like to waste their time by deciding to keep out classified info that isn't really classified. If you believe that, you don't spend much time dealing with them.
Fourth, every time her status has come up in the trial, the CIA lawyers have gotten involved. I guess they are doing that to protect classified info that isn't even classified - that basically your take on it?
none of what you have said explains the REASON why her status could not be part of the case.
the explantion you are asking us to accept is - "because the CIA said so". That's not a reason, its simply an acknowledgment of what other facts show to be, a totally arbitrary decision.
Give me a REASON why her status should be exlcuded from this case? Don't just tell me - "because the CIA says so". The CIA is infested with people who are pursuing other agendas.