JSwift sent me these two related links.

WaPo reported yesterday, according to the article date, that there may not have been a crime committed in the outing of Valerie Plame by the still mysterious 'senior White House Officials.'

Here's a nibble:

Justice Could Decide Leak Was Not a Crime

CRAWFORD, Tex., Jan.1 -- The Justice Department investigation into the leak of a CIA agent's identity could conclude that administration officials disclosed the woman's name and occupation to the media but still committed no crime because they did not know she was an undercover operative, legal experts said this week.

"It could be embarrassing but not illegal," said Victoria Toensing, who was chief counsel of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence when Congress passed the law protecting the identities of undercover agents.

The three-month-old investigation entered a new phase Tuesday when Attorney General John D. Ashcroft recused himself and the Justice Department announced the appointment of a special prosecutor, U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald of Chicago. Democratic presidential candidates complained that the change came too late and did too little to protect against a conflict of interest.

President Bush, when asked Thursday about the probe, said he did not know why Ashcroft had recused himself now.

The Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 specifies that the revelation is a crime only if the accused leaker knew the person was a covert agent. The July newspaper column by Robert D. Novak that touched off the investigation did not specify that Valerie Plame was working undercover, but said she was "an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction." That raises the possibility that the senior administration officials he quoted did not know Plame's status.

"The fact that she was undercover is a classified fact, so it would not be unusual for people to know that she was agency but not know she was undercover," Toensing said. ...Double linked for your protection

I'm sure that others have commented on this. I don't know whether or not the White House is floating this to see how it plays, or just what the hell is going on. Bush is claiming that he doesn't know why his AG has recused himself at this juncture? I don't claim to know the law well enough to know what is actionable, but this really stinks. Reaganitis in Bush the younger?

And I also received a link to this Time article:

The CIA Agent Flap: FBI Asks for Reporters to Talk

Investigators are pressing Administration officials to let journalists tell whatever they know about the leak of a CIA agent's identity

By JOHN F. DICKERSON AND VIVECA NOVAK

FBI investigators looking into the criminal leak of a CIA agent’s identity have asked Bush Administration officials including senior political adviser Karl Rove to release reporters from any confidentiality agreements regarding conversations about the agent. If signed, the single-page requests made over the last week would give investigators new ammunition for questioning reporters who have so far, according to those familiar with the case, not disclosed the names of administration officials who divulged that Valerie Plame, wife of former ambassador Joe Wilson, worked for the CIA.

While irregular, the move is not unprecedented. Various officials were told from the start that such a request might be made. Along with the recusal this week of Attorney General John Ashcroft, this suggests that investigators are ready to enter the next stage of the probe. U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald has been named special prosecutor to oversee the inquiry. The FBI has already extensively re-interviewed some White House officials using emails and phone logs from their search to press for the identity of the leaker. “They are taking this very seriously,” says one close to the case.

Here's a bit more:

It's plain that White House officials are under some pressure to sign the documents. "They can't refuse," said one individual who's familiar with the case. "The worst thing to be accused of here is not cooperating with the investigation." But reporters are not likely to feel the same pressure. Journalists rarely divulge the identities of confidential sources even when threatened with contempt citations so the releases may make little difference. Still, in a post-9/11 world, a case involving the disclosure of a covert agent's identity could be taken very seriously by a judge, who would have the power to jail a member of the press for refusing to cooperate with a grand jury.
Same drill, more at link.

Two articles, two rather different perspectives. In the first, it appears that we'll only have a crime if the leaker can be proven to have known that Ms. Plame was a covert operative before the leak took place.

In the second article the reporting seems a but more forceful. How this relates to the investigation I've nary a clue. It does make for more exciting reading.

As an American citizen, it is my hope that the leaker(s) are brought to justice. It has appeared from the beginning that the Bush administration would try to soft-pedal this issue. I would not be surprised if this investigation resulted in a no-fault outcome. I don't think that there's much disagreement as to why Valerie Plame's name was leaked. Is it now going to fall to murky issues of who knew what, and when they knew it? Is one dot, unable to be connected, going to foil all of this?

The above scenario looks to be a good possibility.

If this makes no sense, it is partly due to the fact that I am working in a client's project and wanted to at least get the links out there for you to peruse.