Remember the thing about the definition of "is?"

They must prove that he knew Plame was undercover. And he never mentioned her by name, just as "the wife of...is a CIA agent."

So, no, he probably won't be tried for treason, but it'd be nice if he were indicted for it.

Should be noted that the whole thing makes me sad, and that after reading the study on incompetence, I now understand clearly how this whole thing happened.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't willingly exposing an undercover CIA agent and risking the possibility that they could be killed by enemy powers actually an act of treason? You know, the sort of thing the Rosenbergs were tried for?

Yes, and for extra fun, let's imagine how this would be playing out if it had happened under the Big Dog's administration.

Of course he probably wouldn't have tried to sell the yellow cake story that started this all off, so it's an entirely academic exercise.

I love yellow cake with chocolate frosting. Mmmmm...

They must prove that he knew Plame was undercover. And he never mentioned her by name, just as "the wife of...is a CIA agent."

I see this in all the news reports too. Can someone explain to me what the actual difference is between "naming" someone and identifying someone as so-and-so's wife? The latter is not any vaguer; it's just an alternate way to refer to someone. (Unless so-and-so is a bigamist of course.)

I think it's all about, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

"But she gave you head."

"That's just making out with genitals."

That sort of thing. Semantics.

Wolfram, dude, you're a lawyer! You are supposed to know this stuff! Where's Narrator?

I see this in all the news reports too.

I do too. I suspect that they're quoting some henchidiot of Rove's (or, WH spokespeople, which amounts to the same thing) -- there's no way the "Wilson's wife" excuse is gonna fly with anyone halfway reasonable, but proving that he knew she was covert sounds like it really could be an issue.

I love yellow cake with chocolate frosting. Mmmmm..

My mother in law made me some of this this past weekend. AIWFG!!

That's what I'm saying. From a legal point of view, identifying someone by name or with specificity is the same damn thing. It's like saying "George W. Bush," or "the president," or "Karl Rove's monkey-boy." Same damn thing.

....but proving that he knew she was covert sounds like it really could be an issue.

Yeah, that'll be how they wiggle out of it. It's also weasly that Rove only magnanimously gave Cooper permission to identify him as a source when it became clear that it was going to come out anyway. Two years later he's all, "I've got nothing to hide."