Apparently, she doesn't fit the requirements to be legally considered covert. Darn. On the other hand she has told conflicting stories about her role in sending Wilson to Niger. Let's prosecute.

King Arthur: [after Arthur's cut off both of the Black Knight's arms] Look, you stupid Bastard. You've got no arms left.

Black Knight: Yes I have.

King Arthur: *Look*!

Black Knight: It's just a flesh wound.

We appreciate that stoopid gits like Shooter step in every once in a while with stuff so damn absurd as to make anyone that is even thinking of taking pity on any poor members of the 28% that may have been deluded by the Dubya maladministration to take pause and say, "Nah, f*ck 'em ... and bury them before they stink up the place."

Cheers,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjGpnYgbPM4&mode=related&search=

never practiced criminal law but I studied the subject in law school.

1. It’s my impression that if Ms. Plame’s having covert status was an element of any of the charges for which Mr. Libby was tried, and there was at least a colorable argument that Plame was not “covert” as defined in the relevant statute, Libby’s defense counsel, in pre-trial proceedings, could have (and should have) moved to have such charges thrown out on that basis.

Did this happen? If so, what result? If not, why not?

The scienter requirement of the IIPA specifies that the "knowing" is not as to whether the person is "covert" but rather that the "knowing" is as to whether the information discloses this person as such an agent and that the agent's identity is being protected.

A fine line, and some blurriness, but requiring that the person charged with the crime know that their information identifies the person as a "covert agent" implicitly assumes also that the person is in fact "covert" to begin with. So yes, if Plame was not "covert", it would be hard to prosecute.

No such "proof" by Libby's defence counsel (or motion on that basis) was made, amongst other reasons because Libby wasn't charged with that crime. No inference at all may be made from the lack of such a motion or proferred defence.

But to make such a motion (should the legal) circumstances have warranted it) would require that Plame not be "covert". As detailed, she was.

Better case:

Too bad the Torricelli rule wasn't around when the CIA armed and trained bin Laden.

The next presser Tony Snow gives, at least one reporter should read off a list of these right wing ditto-heads, then ask Snow point blank - where did YOU get this information Tony? Make it plain that the question is not being directed to him as the White House Press Secretary, but as someone with personal knowledge in his capacity at FOX "news." My guess is that he would quickly fall victim to the contagious strain of amnesia peculiar to this administration.

"How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg?

Four.

Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."

-- Abraham Lincoln

What If This Had Happened Under Clinton?

Pooter: It did happen, by way of now disgraced Sen. Torricelli who outed an agent in Central America. The end result was the now famous Torricelli rule, dictating that only persons of good character can be spies for us. This is a clue to why we don't have better intelligence. As always, IOKIYAD.

I can't find anything on this that backs up you assertions. Misinformation agents and frauds like Benador, Arnaud de Borchgrave at Moonie Times, Freeper links to some conservative columnist named Mulshine who is as confused as you are, National Review or NRO...oh yeah, some clown named Ledeen. Like I said, nothing in the least bit credible.

It's the Torricelli Principle. He didn't out an American CIA Officer, and you mischaracterize the nature of matter. It's more about oversight. I have my cards. Show us yours. IOW, put up or shut up, Pooty. It's time to ante up or fold.

So now it's right wing dogma that our problem in intelligence wasn't Bush Jr. ignoring every screaming warning he was given, it was that people finally stopped the US' CIA from actually supporting genocidalists in Guatemala, exposing CIA contract agents who murdered American citizens in support of an actual genocidal regime, one which the CIA materially supported.

Just like always, the right's only response is to fantasize that if only their tough guy fantasies of being able to shoot bang bang and torture, no matter how stupidly, anywhere in the world, then, oh, then we'd finally be safe.

And Valerie Plame was never 'covert' because she went out in public and forgot to wear her cloak of invisibility.

I just don't think that it's a good idea to derive our strategy from our tactics just because tactics are easier. In my opinion, the abstract isn't always an enemy of the concrete, and this is a case in point.

There's that balance I was suggesting.

Any time. I had to learn how to use a little html a while ago... frustrating at first, but worth it.

Tom Doyle:

I never practiced criminal law but I studied the subject in law school.

1. It’s my impression that if Ms. Plame’s having covert status was an element of any of the charges for which Mr. Libby was tried, and there was at least a colorable argument that Plame was not “covert” as defined in the relevant statute, Libby’s defense counsel, in pre-trial proceedings, could have (and should have) moved to have such charges thrown out on that basis.

Did this happen? If so, what result? If not, why not?

The short answer is just to tell Tom to read the original indictment. But what fun is that? So....

First, for the hypothetical: We're all quite familiar with the scene where pre-trial motions are being argued in chambers. And one of the most common resolutions consists of the judge finding than an issue is not a matter of law alone, but of fact, and thus belongs before the jury, which is the finder of fact.

Second, for the real: Anyone who saw Fitzgerald's indictment announcement knows full well that Libby was charged with perjury and obstruction of justice, and that Fitzgerald was downright angry that Libby had interfered with the process of investigating the outing of Plame.

(The real uncertainty about whether there was an underlying crime has nothing to do with Plame's status. Rather, it has to do with other elements of the crime--whether people knowingly revealed this information, which they knew on a classified basis [as Novack, for example, did not].)

Thus, Plame's status was not an element of any charge against Libby--precisely because he had obstructed the investigation into any possible crimes that did involved her status as an element.

2. Apparently, with respect to the sentencing, the prosecution is arguing that Plame was “covert,” and this is an aggravating circumstance. Is Libby’s defense counsel disputing that (“covert”) characterization?

This is false. The prosecution is responding to presumed mitigating circumstances, under the subsection "B. Propriety of Mr. Libby’s Prosecution," which begins:

Others of Mr. Libby’s friends and associates interviewed for the Presentence Investigation Report assert that his prosecution was unwarranted, unjust, and motivated by politics.

Thus, this is not evidence presented by Fitzgerald which Libby's counsel might rebut. In fact, doing so would put Libby into an even deeper hole, since Fitzgerald argues earlier on that Libby shows no contrition for his crime--and such a move by his lawyers would only further underscrore this point. Rather, Libby's lawyers have avoided making this argument, and have left it to his friends to make, in order to avoid responsibility for it having a damaging effect on Libby. So contesting the facts is the last thing to do at this point.