If you're out, you're out--it's like being pregnant --you are or you aren't.In any event the only report that she was "undercover" is from David Corn who wrote (The Nation) of the first articles. Wilson was obviously his anonymous source, and if he told that to Corn, he "outed" his wife. If he didn't, COrn is a liar.
As to what Fitz is going after--DOJ has very strict rules relating to ths issuance and substance of subpoenas to reporters. He can't go beyond the subpoena. And by agreement he can only go into those things named in the subpoena which relate to Libby.
A while back I read that Corn had not been subpoenaed which I find especially curious given that his was the first article to raise the issue over Novak's column. Royce and Phelps who wrote the second article that I know of, were subpoenaed.
Totally agree. The concern I have is that Judge Tetel in his ruling denying Miller's appeal writes: "Yet the article had that effect precisely because the leaked information—Plame’s covert status—lacked significant news value...Had Cooper based his report on leaks about the leaks—say, from a whistleblower who revealed the plot against Wilson— the situation would be different."
So the judge refers to her as "covert" and then refers to "the plot against Wilson"???? Could it be something in those 8 redacted pages or this just legal talk and meaningless?