[drjimmy]

In this case I think I'm right. The investigation was initiated to determine if the law protecting the identity of covert agents was violated. For perjury to occur, a false statement must be material to the investigation of the underlying crime.
If you go to the website set up last week by Fitzgerald, you can read the letter from Feb. 6, 2004, from acting attorney general James B. Comey, that widened the scope of Fitzgerald's investigation (emphasis added). It shows how you are wrong about getting a free ride for lying:
Dear Patrick:
At your request, I am writing to clarify that my December 30, 2003, delegation to you of "all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department's investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity" is plenary and includes the authority to investigate and prosecute violations of any federal criminal laws related to the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure, as well as federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, your investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted; and to pursue administrative remedies and civil sanctions (such as civil contempt) that are within the Attorney General's authority to impose or pursue.

[Kryptonite]

You don't get it. In order for a perjury charge to stick, the false information must be material. You can't just throw a bunch of alleged crimes against a wall and expect me to see that any of them will stick.

A witness in a murder case can deliberately lie about the color of his socks if it has nothing to do without the murder, and not have to worry about perjury charges.