`  this again? excuse me while i stop my head from spinning before i respond...first, there's nothing new in any of this.  if you read the indictment of Libby, you'll read that Fitzgerald was investigating potential violations of the IIPA.  so we've known that fitzgerald believed Plame fit the definition for almost two years.  the question has never been whether fitzgerald believed she fit the IIPA definition.  the question has been 1)why was no one charged, and 2)if he had charged someone with violating the IIPA, could it have held up in court and could he have gotten a conviction.  the article cited above states that Libby's defense team is going to respond to this specific assertion when it files its brief, and i'll bet you a million dollars they will argue she did not fit the definition.  since there will be no court battle to settle this, it will always remain a mystery.  just because a prosecutor says A is true, doesn't make it true.  it's why we have defense lawyers and trials.  second, the CIA declassification isn't anything new either.  the only significant development is that the CIA now officially acknowledges she was an agent, but won't confirm her employment prior to 2002 (this is now the subject of Plame's lawsuit against the CIA with regards to her book).  but the other interesting aspect of the CIA letter is that the CIA states she ``served`` at CIA headquarters and ``traveled`` overseas.  any defense lawyer would jump on this with regards to the IIPA.  the letter also states that prior to the leak Plame was given a supervisor role at CIA headquarters.  so the assertion by novak that she was a manager when he exposed her isn't that far off.  i don't take any issue with the minor edit made in connection with discussion, but i disagree this article needs a rewrite because of Fitzgeralds brief.    and since we are beating dead horses here...how about this article :``In the additional views, the three senators publish for the first time the full text of an e-mail message sent by Plame on Feb. 12, 2002, in which she writes that Wilson ``may be in a position to assist`` the CIA's inquiries into the Niger reports.   :This, they say, is consistent with what Plame told the CIA's inspector general, who testified to the committee that she had ``made the suggestion`` that Wilson look into the matter for the agency.   :``Additional information recently made available to the committee indicates that this information came from (Plame's) own testimony to the CIA inspector general,`` they write.   :But the additional views note that although the e-mail was sent Feb. 12, there is no evidence of any queries from the vice president's office until Feb. 13.   :Moreover, she had previously told Senate committee staff that she did not recall whether it was she or her supervisor who had originally suggested her husband's name.  `