What I found disturbing was that he started off by giving the impression Plame was, indeed, a covert operative. He then pontificated on the importance of maintaining covert status and national security. Hey, who could disagree with the general principle of perserving national security.
But, half way through, he clearly states that he reached no conclusion about Plame being covert. As a matter of fact, he uses the term "classified" and basically admits that the original statute that formed the underlying basis of the investigation was not violated. Of course, he covers himself by saying prosecutors investigate facts, not crimes.
Basically, it all came down to this. Fitz didn't like the way Plame was treated, covert or not. He felt that if Libby had a beef with Wilson, he should have taken it up with Wilson. Ok, Fitz is a national security hawk and is peeved by what Libby has done. But, he could not indict Libby on the underlying statute. Thus, he uses the process to ensnare Libby, which Libby may deserve to be snared by if he made misleading statement.
Bottom line, Fitz talked about the underlying crime, then did squat about it. Why? I am still waiting for an answer from Fitz, one that doesn't involve bean ball analogies.
"But, half way through, he clearly states that he reached no conclusion about Plame being covert."
Didn't in a previous hearing before and/or during the time Fritzy had this case (IIRC it involved Judith Miller), a bunch of journalists and attorneys file a Amicus Briefs w the court stating she had not been outed? Why didn't he read those, suponea Valerie's boss and/or CIA records and then he would have known she was not covert? Something stinks about this case, to quote the VP - "BIG TIME"