A federal judge has sustained the CIA's refusal to allow Plame to disclose her dates of employment with the agency, reports Tom Maguire of Just One Minute, who says this of her attorney's complaint that the judge's ruling was in part based on secret evidence he was not allowed to view: The New York Times reports:

Mr. Rothberg said that aspect of Judge Jones's ruling was particularly frustrating.

"Trying to argue a case in which the government was able to submit a supersecret affidavit which we were not able to review was like playing an opponent who has 53 cards in his deck," he said.

Ahh - here is where I need some help.  I am looking for a rejoinder along the lines of "Yes, but trying to argue about the significance of Joe Wilson's Niger trip with one of his supporters is like playing an opponent with only 51 cards in their deck."  Only funny.

Or maybe, "Trying to argue about Ms. Plame's covert status with a special counsel who is sitting on her personnel file is like...".  Well, you see my conundrum.

We had previously noted this CIA letter, and continue to believe the information that her pension calculation includes an official CIA accounting of her service abroad is a key data point eerily but not inexplicably suppressed by Special Counsel Fitzgerald.