He also addresses a segment in the Schmidt article, that has to be one of the dumbest things I have ever read from a national-level journalist. About the Plame/Wilson affair, Schmidt wrote:
"Plame's role could be significant in an ongoing investigation into whether a crime was committed when her name and employment were disclosed to reporters last summer....The report may bolster the rationale that administration officials provided the information not to intentionally expose an undercover CIA employee, but to call into question Wilson's bona fides as an investigator into trafficking of weapons of mass destruction. To charge anyone with a crime, prosecutors need evidence that exposure of a covert officer was intentional."Can Schmidt possibly believe that "intentionally" exposing an undercover CIA agent doesn't count when their outing is only a means to an end? Please.
And that bit about "investigation into whether a crime was committed". Sorry, but I think things have gone way past that point. The CIA has already investigated, they referred the matter to the FBI, who investigated and appointed a special prosecutor. A crime was committed; the only question now is who done it.