The October 26 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes featured the analysis of Townhall.com columnist Charles W. Colson, who served as special counsel to President Richard Nixon from 1969 to 1973. After noting that CIA operative Valerie Plame was working at the agency's headquarters in the Langley neighborhood of McLean, Virginia, when her identity was allegedly leaked, Colson said: “When I was in the White House, if somebody was working at Langley, they were fair game.”

Colson was indicted in connection with the Watergate cover-up. The charges were dropped when he subsequently pleaded guilty to obstructing justice by disseminating information from the FBI file of Daniel Ellsberg in an effort to influence the outcome of Ellsberg's trial in connection with leaking the Pentagon Papers. Colson served seven months in prison.

On Hannity & Colmes, Colson noted that the Plame investigation “is very much like the Watergate [case], in the sense that it wasn't the original crime in Watergate, that is, the break-in to the Democratic headquarters, it was the cover-up. I hope and pray this isn't so.” Later in the segment, he explained to co-host Sean Hannity: “But the other thing that's ironic about this, Sean, is that I went to prison for disseminating an FBI file attempting to smear Daniel Ellsberg. So there are stark similarities in this case.”

From the October 26 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:

HANNITY: But if the essence of where this is headed is where we think it is, that it would no longer be about, quote, the 1982 law [the Intelligence Identities Protection Act] or the 1917 law [the Espionage Act], as it relates to the outing of a covert operative, and it now becomes an issue of an omission or a lack of recollection, what does that mean for you?

COLSON: Well, this is very much like the Watergate [case], in the sense that it wasn't the original crime in Watergate, that is, the break-in to the Democratic headquarters, it was the cover-up. I hope and pray this isn't so. But if anybody lied before a grand jury, of course, that's an indictable offense. Let's wait and see what the evidence is.

I don't think on the first charge, that is whether any of the government officials knew it was a CIA agent, makes any sense whatsoever, because she was working at Langley. When I was in the White House, if somebody was working at Langley, they were fair game. So I don't understand the original charge.

ALAN COLMES (co-host): Let me bring [Fox News contributor] Kirsten [Powers] in here --

COLSON: But probably what's going to happen -- and prosecutors are famous for doing this -- is you put the person through the meat grinder of the investigation, the grand jury will do anything the prosecutor wants, and then you get them on spitting on the sidewalk or some lesser charge --

COLMES: Oh, you mean like they did with Bill Clinton.

[...]

COLMES: Chuck Colson, it's clear that this is beyond the 1982 law. There's lots more involved here than just what might have been said or codified in 1982, right?

COLSON: I'm afraid that's the case. I hate to see it, because, if you drag an investigation out over two years, you can always get somebody in a conflict of testimony. I mean, I will be amazed if every witness said exactly the same thing every time they appeared. I went through this. I testified 45 times under oath. I was never charged with perjury. But the other thing that's ironic about this, Sean, is that I went to prison for disseminating an FBI file attempting to smear Daniel Ellsberg. So there are stark similarities in this case.